Medium bore trombones - why?

[OneTon]

I've been playing my King 5B bass in a big band. It works in the section, where my Bach 50 wouldn't!
I have large bore tenors, they haven't been played for years. My Bach 36 always gives enough that I don't feel the need for the large bores.

Our primary bass in big band plays a Blessing 88H (?) with a 1.5 megatone mouthpiece and covers the part just fine. We sometimes run two basses as per N TX ST. The 2nd bass has a Thomas that is a true bass with two valves. It makes for a good sound.

One of our 88H one and only players got called to cover bass in Michael Andrew’s big band. With the Remington supplied mouthpiece, which he sounds great on for anything else, the big band bass sound was not achieved. The looks he got from Michael Andrew were not endearing.

The time I got to play Brahms 4th in university I was using an 88H as was the 1st. I confess that I loved the sound. The 88H and 2B achieve a respective quintessential essence. If chamber music and brass quartet and quintet music were more more popular, a 0.525 might have found its niche. Perhaps the Bach 36 or King 3B+ did. I don’t know what Brahms heard when he wrote it. It is quite possible that 0.525 bores would cover 1st and 2nd. I would even be interested to hear Brahms 4th played with Bach 6s.

There was an old guy playing 1st in the old Tulsa Philharmonic with a King 3B+. Some college punks made fun of him. I did not get to hear them play Brahms 4th. But I actually thought he sounded okay. At least it did not “stick out.” Actually it was better than okay. I liked it better than some of the orchestras with trombones that sound more like euphoniums.

And Yes: Trombone Chat is probably dominated by players with obsessive compulsive disorder.

[Matt K]

Earlier this year, I attended a brass workshop at the nearest uni. Peter Steiner played so there were a lot of trombon players there. But not a straight horn in sight.

And yet I can’t find an orchestral sub.

The F attachment really opens up a lot of things that you don’t get on a straight horn. I’m finishing my arsenal of all F attachment horns now with an O’Malley Bach 6 replica bell with a .484/.491 slide and a .493 bore valve section!

[harrisonreed]

Brahms 4 was likely written for Eb alto on 1st.

[OneTon]

I kind of doubt if a Bach 6 sounds like an Eb alto, especially if the alto has a “correct” mouthpiece. I would like to hear how Brahms 4th sounds with an Eb alto if anyone knows of a recording of it. On the other hand, in homage Duke
Ellington, if it sounds good it is good. And a couple of 88Hs might just help fill a few more seats.

[harrisonreed]

I kind of doubt if a Bach 6 sounds like an Eb alto, especially if the alto has a “correct” mouthpiece. I would like to hear how Brahms 4th sounds with an Eb alto if anyone knows of a recording of it. On the other hand, in homage Duke
Ellington, if it sounds good it is good. And a couple of 88Hs might just help fill a few more seats.

Looks like Hakan Bjorkman on his 36H

[RJMason]

I did most of my work on a Bach 36B for nearly ten years, which covered every style imaginable in the studio, on TV, and live, except playing in a professional orchestra. I didn’t want to bring several horns on the subway to freelance.

When I left NYC for Nashville I felt some mild, but palpable, pressure to use a small bore for commercial work and a large bore for symphonic work in the studios there, as well as getting a proper bass trombone instead of just using a deep small shank mouthpiece on a .525.

It’s been about four years playing mainly on a small bore horn and a bass trombone, and occasionally pulling out the Conn 88H.

After spending years in both schools of thought I think I prefer the multiple horn/“right tool” thing, but I am planning to switch back to .525 this summer with a fresh perspective to see how it goes. I feel like I’m able to pick and choose work right now, and everything I want to do can be done very well with a .525. Lastly, it feels like my “voice” for creative work.

But I now live in LA, and have a feeling I will return to the “right tool” perspective when things slow down and I can’t be picky! Cycles.

I hope more orchestral players break the mold and stop their exclusive use of these modern .547s built to win auditions. They sound really loud, articulations are woofy, every note has a bloom, encourage terrible time feel, and require way more work to play musically in other styles.

I’d rather listen to a section on alto, 36, 88H than 3 players thinking they are chasing the Alessi sound concept by playing slide euphoniums lol

[Bach5G]

RJ Mason referred to: ‘chasing the Alessi sound concept’.

He’s been a singular influence in N America for a while now.

[Posaunus]

I would like to hear how Brahms 4th sounds with an Eb alto if anyone knows of a recording of it.

Looks like Hakan Bjorkman on his 36H

And is that a King 3B on 2nd Trombone?

[brassmedic]

Disclaimer: I don't play orchestral rep and my background is mainly big band, rock, blues, and a little of everything else including brass ensemble and NOLA brass band. However, I am astounded regarding numerous threads and conversations on horns sizes. I would say that most historical big bands typically got it right for gear with small bore, small-medium bore, medium bore and bass trombone in a section for balance in this rep. However, the classical composers would flip over in their graves if they saw how their music was being played especially by the brass. We have essentially bass trombones blaring playing part one and everyone just agrees that this is how it is. Who says? Everyone needs a 0.547. Please stop. No wonder why trombones get a bad rap for being loud and why composers/conductors cringe around us. Really why are we all so obnoxious as trombonists and then confused when non-tombonists call us out on it. Medium bore is completely appropriate in many places including 2nd or 3rd in big and and likely 1st in most orchestras. Seriously, many of you should get off your high horses. I love my 36B and Mercedes when appropriate. I also use my 2b, constellation and bolero when appropriate as well and no I am not buying a 0.547 horn because people say I should. Thanks.

I keep seeing this myth repeated that the old big bands used graduated bore sizes. They did not. It was all small bore. When they had a bass, it was 3 small bores and a bass. Lots of exceptions now, but back then it was not small, small-medium, medium, large. And on casuals, the lead parts often get passed all over the section, so it would make no sense to have bore sizes getting gradually bigger down the line.

Also, I've never had a non-trombonist complain about .547 bore in an orchestra. If I ever do hear a comment, it's a complaint about the trombones using something other than .547. On most of the stuff I do, conductors and especially composers want more trombone sound and ask for it to be louder and "brassier". And nothing brings an audience to their feet like a loud brass section. I don't think I have ever heard an audience member say that the trombones ruined the concert by playing too loud. As for conductors, occasionally you get some clod who has his hand up as soon as he sees light reflecting off the trombone bells, but trombone haters are relatively rare in my experience. I use .547 more often than not, but also alto, .500 bore, .525, bass, German style trombone, sackbut - whatever makes the most sense for the situation.

[CalgaryTbone]

Disclaimer: I don't play orchestral rep and my background is mainly big band, rock, blues, and a little of everything else including brass ensemble and NOLA brass band. However, I am astounded regarding numerous threads and conversations on horns sizes. I would say that most historical big bands typically got it right for gear with small bore, small-medium bore, medium bore and bass trombone in a section for balance in this rep. However, the classical composers would flip over in their graves if they saw how their music was being played especially by the brass. We have essentially bass trombones blaring playing part one and everyone just agrees that this is how it is. Who says? Everyone needs a 0.547. Please stop. No wonder why trombones get a bad rap for being loud and why composers/conductors cringe around us. Really why are we all so obnoxious as trombonists and then confused when non-tombonists call us out on it. Medium bore is completely appropriate in many places including 2nd or 3rd in big and and likely 1st in most orchestras. Seriously, many of you should get off your high horses. I love my 36B and Mercedes when appropriate. I also use my 2b, constellation and bolero when appropriate as well and no I am not buying a 0.547 horn because people say I should. Thanks.

I keep seeing this myth repeated that the old big bands used graduated bore sizes. They did not. It was all small bore. When they had a bass, it was 3 small bores and a bass. Lots of exceptions now, but back then it was not small, small-medium, medium, large. And on casuals, the lead parts often get passed all over the section, so it would make no sense to have bore sizes getting gradually bigger down the line.

Also, I've never had a non-trombonist complain about .547 bore in an orchestra. If I ever do hear a comment, it's a complaint about the trombones using something other than .547. On most of the stuff I do, conductors and especially composers want more trombone sound and ask for it to be louder and "brassier". And nothing brings an audience to their feet like a loud brass section. I don't think I have ever heard an audience member say that the trombones ruined the concert by playing too loud. As for conductors, occasionally you get some clod who has his hand up as soon as he sees light reflecting off the trombone bells, but trombone haters are relatively rare in my experience. I use .547 more often than not, but also alto, .500 bore, .525, bass, German style trombone, sackbut - whatever makes the most sense for the situation.

[harrisonreed]

Disclaimer: I don't play orchestral rep

I keep seeing this myth repeated that the old big bands used graduated bore sizes. They did not. It was all small bore. When they had a bass, it was 3 small bores and a bass. Lots of exceptions now, but back then it was not small, small-medium, medium, large. And on casuals, the lead parts often get passed all over the section, so it would make no sense to have bore sizes getting gradually bigger down the line.

Also, I've never had a non-trombonist complain about .547 bore in an orchestra. If I ever do hear a comment, it's a complaint about the trombones using something other than .547. On most of the stuff I do, conductors and especially composers want more trombone sound and ask for it to be louder and "brassier". And nothing brings an audience to their feet like a loud brass section. I don't think I have ever heard an audience member say that the trombones ruined the concert by playing too loud. As for conductors, occasionally you get some clod who has his hand up as soon as he sees light reflecting off the trombone bells, but trombone haters are relatively rare in my experience. I use .547 more often than not, but also alto, .500 bore, .525, bass, German style trombone, sackbut - whatever makes the most sense for the situation.

+1

[RJMason]

RJ Mason referred to: ‘chasing the Alessi sound concept’.

He’s been a singular influence in N America for a while now.

Yeah and with very good reason!

For me, it’s exciting to see trombonists embracing new sound concepts, like what modern players are doing. There's so much potential beyond the traditional sound, and I believe it opens up more opportunities for musicians. It's interesting how certain sound concepts can become entrenched over time, impacting not just performers but composers and conductors too. It is time for more variety and exploration.

Imagine the possibilities for young trombonists if they dared to forge their own path, exploring different equipment and musical styles.

Back to medium bore: Could a .525 chassis with interchangeable bells offer versatility akin to choosing different amplifiers for a guitar? Perhaps with the right packaging, it could be a game-changer!

[Matt K]

I’ve always found the criticism of 547s as sounding like euphonium to be puzzling, implying that it’s not unreasonable to show up to a trombone gig with a euph or vice versa. I’ve never found either to be remotely similar beyond being brass instruments. It’s no harder to articulate cleanly on a 547, or larger, than it is on a 500 bore. Articulation by those emulating other American orchestras is purely an artistic choice (perhaps dictated by the MD, but a choice, nonetheless) not an inevitable outcome of using a 547. Robin Eubanks, Slide Hampton, Steve Davis, Steve Turree, and Michael Dease certainly don’t have any of the poor qualities that have been described here.

I know anecdotally I did some jam sessions over the last year with the local jazz professor - a sax player - and he really likes it when I bring my 562/578 bass. He has no idea the bore size, he just really likes the sound and the range it gives, like being able to double the bass on things like the intro to recordame or “So What”, taking the head down an octave, pedal points, etc. You don’t really lose all that much since it’s still in Bb.

Back to medium bore: Could a .525 chassis with interchangeable bells offer versatility akin to choosing different amplifiers for a guitar? Perhaps with the right packaging, it could be a game-changer!

With the exception of the King lineup and a few older out-of-production Conn models, virtually all medium bores are just large bore bell sections. The 8.5” vs 8” does make a difference. Swapping bells out is nice. So is being able to use a large shank leadpipe on the 525 side. It makes the sound much closer to a 547; nearly indistinguishable depending on what 547 slide you’re comparing it too. Small vs. large shank makes a huge difference. Fwiw, 525/547 is my favorite bore size to play on. I doubt few people would be able to tell the difference between it and the same bell with my 547/562 slide, at least from the other side of the bell.

[OneTon]

Looks like Hakan Bjorkman on his 36H

Thanks Harrison. That is interesting. Just like Will Rogers, I never met a trombone I didn’t like.

[hyperbolica]

I hope more orchestral players break the mold and stop their exclusive use of these modern .547s built to win auditions. They sound really loud, articulations are woofy, every note has a bloom, encourage terrible time feel, and require way more work to play musically in other styles.

I’d rather listen to a section on alto, 36, 88H than 3 players thinking they are chasing the Alessi sound concept by playing slide euphoniums lol

Yeah, totally agree. Sometimes it's what you want, but usually you want something else.

...

I hope more orchestral players break the mold and stop their exclusive use of these modern .547s built to win auditions. They sound really loud, articulations are woofy, every note has a bloom, encourage terrible time feel, and require way more work to play musically in other styles.

I’d rather listen to a section on alto, 36, 88H than 3 players thinking they are chasing the Alessi sound concept by playing slide euphoniums lol

It's not that they sound exactly like euphoniums, but that's the tendency.

Alessi and the Chicago and Philly and all those sections that have a rep for playing big are playing in kind of an extreme situation. Most of us don't regularly play in a huge space unamplified and competing with a sea of strings in a situation where you don't want to show a lot of edge. If I did that all day, yeah, I'd probably be on a 547 too. But you don't commute in an F1 or a dump truck. "The right tool for the job" usually means you pick something in between, not an extreme.

The number of artist level players who are selecting a horn with a 525 in the specs is I think indicates that 525 isn't just the "step up" for high school kids that it sometimes gets the rep for. Elliot Mason, Ralph Sauer, Nils Landgren...

[AtomicClock]

Alessi and the Chicago and Philly and all those sections that have a rep for playing big are playing in kind of an extreme situation. Most of us don't regularly play in a huge space unamplified and competing with a seal of strings in a situation where you don't want to show a lot of edge. If I did that all day, yeah, I'd probably be on a 547 too.

Or contrast Chicago and Philly with every community orchestra. String section severely underpopulated, trombone section with weekend-warrior chops, but still with the .547 tenors.

[JohnL]

Or contrast Chicago and Philly with every community orchestra. String section severely underpopulated, trombone section with weekend-warrior chops, but still with the .547 tenors.

You neglected to mention performing in a hall that seats maybe a few hundred rather that a couple thousand...

[LeTromboniste]

Alessi and the Chicago and Philly and all those sections that have a rep for playing big are playing in kind of an extreme situation. Most of us don't regularly play in a huge space unamplified and competing with a sea of strings in a situation where you don't want to show a lot of edge.

Also, these sections routinely obliterate even their sea of strings.

[RJMason]

Also, these sections routinely obliterate even their sea of strings.

Totally agree.

The F attachment really opens up a lot of things that you don’t get on a straight horn. I’m finishing my arsenal of all F attachment horns now with an O’Malley Bach 6 replica bell with a .484/.491 slide and a .493 bore valve section!

.493 valve section?! I’ve been dreaming of putting an f attachment on my Bach 8/12!

[johntarr]

After giving up the idea of making a living playing in an orchestra (many years ago), I played .525 bore horns, which worked for most of what I was doing. Recently, I switched back to a .547 bore horn (M&W) because I enjoy the expanded register. The valve works really well so I have access to a few more notes below the staff and can still play with a certain ease in the upper register. With the .525 bore horns I played, I couldn’t quite get the lower register to speak the way I wanted.

It’s a pleasure to play my old Conn 72H and Bach 34, but the M&W allows me to be able to almost cover the ranges of those two horns. Additionally, I regularly get compliments from my string player colleagues for my sound, more so than when I was playing a 36B. And for what it’s worth, I never want to bury the orchestra. For me, the .547 bore horns seem to be a good size for a wide register and I can produce different kinds of sounds. Plus, we have mutes! That being said, I agree that we could use more diversity of sound concepts and welcome the idea of using different instruments, and even more importantly, mindsets.

[Slidennis]

That's my experience - the 36B I purchased new in 1986 came with a Bach 7C but that was as small as I found workable on that horn. In general, I have found the medium bore horns to no like deep cups. Not sure if that is more about the depth itself or the backbore that is generally paired with them. In the Doug Elliott world, the C+/D/D+ is the sweet spot for me - YMMV

I found 36B + Wick 4BS to be a really nice combination. 51D was too far though; got so many response and intonation quirks.

My 88H w/ .525" slide is at his best with a Bach 5 GS, but this is more a small big tenor than the reverse... and forget about the 7C... Very versatile combo, BTW...

[Slidennis]

525 is my go to. Tbone choir? Quartet? Quintet? Church gig? 1 or 2 in an orchestra? Unless it needs serious 547 power, low notes, or need for a lighter sound or harder articulation of a 500/508 bore, it's either the 79h or 88h w/525. The sound is more interesting.

If I don't know what's coming, sometimes I take a 547. Its a harder push, the sound doesn't shimmer up high, but you have some depth down low. I prefer a lighter sound when it makes sense. 547 is overkill 80-90% of the time.

Am I alone to find this, that some large bore horns can be more nimble up high than some medium bore's??? As is my 8H "Artist Symphony" w/ dual 547-562 slide compared to my 88HO (UMI) w/ 525 slide... (and if I swap slides, they do not respond as fine as the settings here mentioned...)

[harrisonreed]

It's not that they sound exactly like euphoniums, but that's the tendency.

For all the different comments from everyone about the differences and nuances between a .525 and .547 trombone and being able to appreciate that tiny difference, I think claiming that .547 trombones sound like euphoniums might detract from the argument. In no universe does a .547 trombone sound like a Euph.

I would be of the opinion that the real problem with .547 trombones is the mouthpiece, not the trombone itself. If you are using a 4G or even 5G piece on a .547, you're missing a trick. A .547 with a piece that is shallower than a 5G is often a better sound, and easier to play.

I also don't necessarily buy the volume argument either. A .547 will help you play louder while keeping a sonorous tone, but in terms of overall volume, a King 3B will blow a .547 out of the water every day of the week. So it's possible to bury the strings on any trombone (barring sacbuts), but you'll likely sound "smoother" doing that on a .547.

I'm all for using the right tool for the job. If something works better on a Bach 36 or on an alto, that's a conscious decision to make. But I think the .547 haters might be in a situation where they are trying to play their. 547 with a very deep mouthpiece, say a G cup, and then when they switch to their .525 they might be on a DE E cup (or 6.5AL, or similar mp). Suddenly it sounds clear and is easier to play. Well, why do you use a G or even H cup on the large trombone, and an E cup on the medium one? Because that's the way it is? It doesn't have to be.

[Finetales]

The other week, I listened to "Bolero" being played by one of the major Swedish symphonies, and the trombone solo was all too mellow and polite for my liking, however impeccably played on a Conn.

I would have preferred the lead trombonist to play a smaller horn, and get a light, more edge-y bite to the high part, and a little more focused sound at the end.

Bolero is arguably one of the only places in the rep where it would be seen as "acceptable" to bring a small horn. After all, Ravel wanted it to sound like Tommy Dorsey!

Not all large bore horns are created equally.

This is an important point. Not every .547 is like a 42. The 88H is smaller and more colorful, the 4B smaller still, the Selmer Largo sounds and plays like no other trombone (and does not blend with ANYTHING else, small or large!), etc.

(The Largo would probably work a jazz combo probably more effectively than it does in a large ensemble, it is that different. You could bring a Largo for Bolero so that you're still technically playing by the rules...)

Also, not every small horn is a "jazzer" either. There was a Romeo Adaci .500" bore trombone I tried at DJ's once that was 100% a classical/orchestral horn. The sound was dark and dense and I would imagine it would sound AMAZING on principal. I think it would be interesting if principal players experimented with building dark, orchestral small bores (not just .525s that are trying to sound like .547s). You can do it at Shires and I'm sure all the other modular/boutique makers as well. Lots of red brass, nickel kranz on the bell...

I’m finishing my arsenal of all F attachment horns now with an O’Malley Bach 6 replica bell with a .484/.491 slide and a .493 bore valve section!

O'Malley has a 6 mandrel? This is...dangerous.

[LeTromboniste]

I also don't necessarily buy the volume argument either. A .547 will help you play louder while keeping a sonorous tone, but in terms of overall volume, a King 3B will blow a .547 out of the water every day of the week. So it's possible to bury the strings on any trombone (barring sacbuts), but you'll likely sound "smoother" doing that on a .547.

In my experience a .547 definitely has more volume potential than a smaller horn, i.e. you'll reach a higher dB level before the sound colour sounds "loud", and you'll be able to keep that "big", "round", "dark", sound at a higher dynamic before brightness starts cutting through. With a smaller and lighter horn, you are perceived as "loud" earlier, and your sound shines or cuts through the texture without burying everyone. You more quickly reach a point where it's not worth playing any louder because it'll just get ugly. Sure you could still play louder and bury the strings, but you likely won't, is the point. But then you don't get the "wall of sound" thrill we've gotten used to.

Conversely, I find that large bores and big bass trombones tend to be fairly dull at soft dynamics. They lack colour and focus to properly blend and get chords to lock at piano or softer. There's a reason orchestral sections virtually never venture into really soft playing. I cannot count the number of times I've heard the phrase "an orchestral piano or pianissimo is mezzo-piano", from colleagues, teachers, coaches, top orchestra players... When has anyone last heard the soft trombone chorales at the end of Tchaik 6 or Mahler 6 actually played really soft (down to ppppp for Tchaik!)? I'm not sure I ever have, and the few versions I can remember that try to go for it all have intonation and blend problems.

[hyperbolica]

For all the different comments from everyone about the differences and nuances between a .525 and .547 trombone and being able to appreciate that tiny difference, I think claiming that .547 trombones sound like euphoniums might detract from the argument. In no universe does a .547 trombone sound like a Euph.

It's not a tiny difference. 0.022" is bigger than the difference between 525 and 508 (0.017"). It divides the sizes into even-ish steps. I play that size in part because the air requirement is lower. After you've had some sort of injury or god forbid you live to see 50 or more, you'll probably have a different perspective.

And to be honest, my bass feels like a euph or at least like a baritone to me. I've spent years fighting that. But everybody seems to love that mushy, velvety sound on bass. I'm a trombone player, and want even a bass trombone to sound and play like a trombone, as unpopular as that seems to be. This is why I'm always looking for odd bass-y things to get a little bit of that woof out of the sound. The King 1480 (0.536 top slide) holds a lot of promise if you can work out the ergo and range problems.

I would be of the opinion that the real problem with .547 trombones is the mouthpiece, not the trombone itself. If you are using a 4G or even 5G piece on a .547, you're missing a trick. A .547 with a piece that is shallower than a 5G is often a better sound, and easier to play...

But I think the .547 haters might be in a situation where they are trying to play their. 547 with a very deep mouthpiece, say a G cup, and then when they switch to their .525 they might be on a DE E cup (or 6.5AL, or similar mp). Suddenly it sounds clear and is easier to play. Well, why do you use a G or even H cup on the large trombone, and an E cup on the medium one? Because that's the way it is? It doesn't have to be.

Part of the reason for going to a 525 slide is to get the smaller shank mouthpiece. I'm not going to use one of those adapters that comes with student 547s. Why would you play a small cup on a large shank? I have G and F cups for large bore, but to be honest, I only put my 547 slide and G cup on the 88h when I'm playing 3rd parts that aren't bass parts. I also have F and G 4 shanks, so I can cross those over into 525. But that's rare when I want to do that. Just to say there are options on both sides.

I also don't necessarily buy the volume argument either. A .547 will help you play louder while keeping a sonorous tone, but in terms of overall volume, a King 3B will blow a .547 out of the water every day of the week. So it's possible to bury the strings on any trombone (barring sacbuts), but you'll likely sound "smoother" doing that on a .547.

I just boxed up a 3bf and happily shipped it out today. I kept it for a while, but I just don't get the hype. I've bought and sold at least 3 3b's. I want to like it, but it's hard. The sound is kinda harsh. Yes, it blended better with trumpets, but is that a good thing? I played it with quintet for a few months, and at first I liked it, but the 88h w525 was just a big sound quality improvement. You can't get the volume without edge on the 3b.

I'm all for using the right tool for the job. If something works better on a Bach 36 or on an alto, that's a conscious decision to make.

I played 547 exclusively from the time I was 10 until I was probably 40. I was one of "those guys". But it turns out that there are other options available for a lot of different situations.

[harrisonreed]

That's what I'm saying though, you *can* and should use a shallower mouthpiece then a 5G on large bore. Forget the shank size aspect for a sec. Large bores used to and sometimes still do ship with a 6.5 mouthpiece. Have people have heard Alessi live recently -- his mouthpiece is shallower than a 5G (but not as shallow as a 6.5 though!) and he sounds *bright*. I think people are remembering the early 90s Alessi sound, here.

It's worth a try to use a more reasonable mouthpiece on .547 before swearing off it forever, at least.

The 3B is 100% for ska, big band, NOLA brass band, etc. I wouldn't use that in orchestra if I had access to a big horn.

[LeTromboniste]

That's what I'm saying though, you *can* and should use a shallower mouthpiece then a 5G on large bore.

...

It's worth a try to use a more reasonable mouthpiece on .547 before swearing off it forever, at least.

With this I agree very much!

[hornbuilder]

I have to ask, (Hyperbolica specifically) have you ever heard the Chicago section live? They are nothing like euphoniums in sound, regardless of volume. Their sound is clear and crisp, bright and energetic, full and rich, buoyant and lively.

And to Maximilien, I also ask you, have you heard Chicago live? What you say is just not true

[hyperbolica]

I have to ask, (Hyperbolica specifically) have you ever heard the Chicago section live? They are nothing like euphoniums in sound, regardless of volume. Their sound is clear and crisp, bright and energetic, full and rich, buoyant and lively.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I said those orchestras known for big playing use big equipment to avoid edge when they play loud. Most of the rest of us don't have any call to try to use the same equipment because we're not in the same situation. For the same reason we don't commute in an F1 car.

I wouldn't go as far as calling their sound "bright". It's not inappropriate for what they are doing. If they were here playing my gigs, I imagine they might do something different.

[sf105]

Bolero is arguably one of the only places in the rep where it would be seen as "acceptable" to bring a small horn. After all, Ravel wanted it to sound like Tommy Dorsey!

Very much this.

I'd also make a case for other French music, especially Berlioz. Those pedal notes only make sense when they're a kind of rattle down the bottom of the orchestra, rather than a devastating sound canon.

I was struck once when watching the LSO doing Peleas that tromones in that repertoire should really be about adding colour, rather than body. (The trombones put on a masterly show of not being too bored while being stuck on stage.)

[Bach5G]

We once rehearsed Symphonie Fantastique with alto, Bach 16 (actually a DeBruycker bell) and bass (downsizing on bass is a tough sell).

It really sounded quite marvellous.

[harrisonreed]

We once rehearsed Symphonie Fantastique with alto, Bach 16 (actually a DeBruycker bell) and bass (downsizing on bass is a tough sell).

It really sounded quite marvellous.

Seems appropriate for that work!

[LeTromboniste]

And to Maximilien, I also ask you, have you heard Chicago live?

No, I haven't heard Chicago in person, but I don't think I've said anything about Chicago? If anything they are an example of what I would like to see more of, as they like to use various equipment and explore different sound colours, and not always stick to the big guns for everything, and they're not afraid to sound bright.

What you say is just not true

What part of what I say is just not true? A lot of it was opinion, and my perception and personal experience, not statements of fact.

[CalgaryTbone]

I also don't necessarily buy the volume argument either. A .547 will help you play louder while keeping a sonorous tone, but in terms of overall volume, a King 3B will blow a .547 out of the water every day of the week. So it's possible to bury the strings on any trombone (barring sacbuts), but you'll likely sound "smoother" doing that on a .547.

In my experience a .547 definitely has more volume potential than a smaller horn, i.e. you'll reach a higher dB level before the sound colour sounds "loud", and you'll be able to keep that "big", "round", "dark", sound at a higher dynamic before brightness starts cutting through. With a smaller and lighter horn, you are perceived as "loud" earlier, and your sound shines or cuts through the texture without burying everyone. You more quickly reach a point where it's not worth playing any louder because it'll just get ugly. Sure you could still play louder and bury the strings, but you likely won't, is the point. But then you don't get the "wall of sound" thrill we've gotten used to.

Conversely, I find that large bores and big bass trombones tend to be fairly dull at soft dynamics. They lack colour and focus to properly blend and get chords to lock at piano or softer. There's a reason orchestral sections virtually never venture into really soft playing. I cannot count the number of times I've heard the phrase "an orchestral piano or pianissimo is mezzo-piano", from colleagues, teachers, coaches, top orchestra players... When has anyone last heard the soft trombone chorales at the end of Tchaik 6 or Mahler 6 actually played really soft (down to ppppp for Tchaik!)? I'm not sure I ever have, and the few versions I can remember that try to go for it all have intonation and blend problems.

I know that every time I've ever played the chorale from Tchaikovsky 6th, the low brass "busted their a..es" to get to the softest possible dynamic for the end of it. One memorable time playing that chorale was at an Alessi Seminar, where Joe insisted on an absolute whisper at the end. The other passage where he preferred less was on the loud unison tune in the 1st mvt. Blend was the key here, and not letting adrenalin take over when playing in front of a hall full of trombonists while he provided coaching was the key takeaway.

I think it's not realistic to imagine that there are trombonists that are playing louder than what the conductor wants on a regular basis. There can be individuals that push the limits, and certainly an occasional moment when a section could be louder OR softer than what a conductor was looking for, but a section that makes a habit of this is going to hear about it. If you like getting the pay check, you can't be openly disrespectful like that. Conductors and audiences like that "wall of sound" quite often too. When our brass section gets a bow after a concert with a lot of exciting moments, we get a loud reaction and extra applause from the audience.

Obviously, not all orchestral concerts have those moments, and different equipment can be a tool to bring more color to the sound at lower volumes. I love playing alto on Mozart and Beethoven, etc. My .508 horn is great on Pops. I have an 8" bell that can be used on either a .525 or a .547 slide and that was just the ticket for the Schubert 9th recently. It kept most of the warmth that I associate with a .547, and added some clarity and compactness to the higher passages.

By the way, I'm not a Sacbut player, but I have heard quite a few loud sacbuts on YouTube in recently released clips. I guess it's possible to push the limits on whatever horn you choose to play on. Trombonists should play on whatever horn they feel is appropriate with a great sound, and in a way that is in keeping with the wishes of the conductor and the enjoyment of the audience.

Jim Scott

[Posaunus]

...

I think it's not realistic to imagine that there are trombonists that are playing louder than what the conductor wants on a regular basis. There can be individuals that push the limits, and certainly an occasional moment when a section could be louder OR softer than what a conductor was looking for, but a section that makes a habit of this is going to hear about it. If you like getting the pay check, you can't be openly disrespectful like that. Conductors and audiences like that "wall of sound" quite often too. ...

Obviously, not all orchestral concerts have those moments, and different equipment can be a tool to bring more color to the sound at lower volumes. ...

I guess it's possible to push the limits on whatever horn you choose to play on. Trombonists should play on whatever horn they feel is appropriate with a great sound, and in a way that is in keeping with the wishes of the conductor and the enjoyment of the audience.

Jim Scott

Thanks Jim, for your wise observations.

[Matt K]

.493 valve section?! I’ve been dreaming of putting an f attachment on my Bach 8/12!

Yep! King donor valve section I forgot I had. My 2B slide is in the shop atm, but will probably have a 2B slide, just need to make sure the length isn't too wacky.

Am I alone to find this, that some large bore horns can be more nimble up high than some medium bore's??? As is my 8H "Artist Symphony" w/ dual 547-562 slide compared to my 88HO (UMI) w/ 525 slide... (and if I swap slides, they do not respond as fine as the settings here mentioned...)

100%. I have a Holton bass bell that's more nimble with a 562/578 slide than some of my small bores. That thing is unbelievably lively. Gives a big sound, not totally appropriate for everything mentioned (probably), though certainly passable. I wouldn't play lead on it But there are medium bores I own that I could, though I probably won't. Although, there's a great recording:



Of a bunch of large bore players in a section that sounds... pretty good!! I don't anticipate being able to do something so experimental in that setup given where I currently live.

O'Malley has a 6 mandrel? This is...dangerous.

A 6iii, which is supposedly one of the more lively and less popular 6 options. It's definitely a surprising choice that I didn't ask why. Very interested to see how the project works out!

---

Also agree with Harrison. You don't have to have a small rim to have a shallower cup, and that really brings out the color in a lot of large bores I've tried. Believe Megumi Kanda plays the shallowest setup I've heard of, as of a few months ago playing on an Elliott D+/D8 - and she sounds fantastic! I seldom play anything deeper than an E cup except for bass, myself.

[hornbuilder]

Maximilien.
This quote. This, at least for Chicago, is simply not true.

[LeTromboniste]

Maximilien.
This quote. This, at least for Chicago, is simply not true.

I didn't name Chicago there. The comment I was responding to included Chicago, but among others (two more named and the general "and all those sections that play big"). I was responding in general, not about Chicago.

My point was that I don't buy the "big horns are needed in those extreme situations to be able to be heard over the sea of strings" thing, because clearly we're doing more than just being heard, and many sections frequently bury the rest of the orchestra. We don't use .547s because of balance reasons with big orchestras, we use them because we need to align to a certain aesthetic and a sound concept.

Does the Chicago section struggle to be heard when they play their German trombones? I doubt it, or they just wouldn't do it. (yes I know German trombones can have an even larger bore, but they play and sound nothing like a modern heavy .547)

[hornbuilder]

German trombones do not "have an even larger bore". They are, infact, smaller in slide bore than American instruments, and make an entirely different type of sound.

[LeTromboniste]

German trombones do not "have an even larger bore". They are, infact, smaller in slide bore than American instruments, and make an entirely different type of sound.

...I said can have...

Not sure if I'm just not writing in a way that allows me to be understood, I apologize if that's the case.

By the way, I'm not a Sacbut player, but I have heard quite a few loud sacbuts on YouTube in recently released clips. I guess it's possible to push the limits on whatever horn you choose to play on.

Absolutely.

Trombonists should play on whatever horn they feel is appropriate with a great sound,

Also, absolutely. That's precisely my point.

Again, the entire time I played modern trombone except the first couple years, I played large bore instruments. I absolutely LOVED my 42. I will never stop being sad of having had to sell it. I can also say that everytime I play in an orchestra with any other type of tenor than a modern large bore, it feels like a revelation (whether it was sizing down to a 6H on principal or playing German or French trombones). Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying nobody should play on large bore tenors. I'm questioning why everyone has to play on large bore tenors as a default, and whether the trombone world would benefit from more diversity in instruments and playing approaches.

[Blenky]

This has been one of my favourite threads to follow!

I’m just an aspiring amateur, but with my level of practice and embouchure I find my Yamaha YSL640 the perfect instrument for the first part in quartets/quintets. If I use my 88HCL the sound is just too big and my stamina is nowhere close to using the Yamaha.

I also found that the YSL640 was the perfect instrument to play the 2nd part for the Tuba Miram in Mozart requiem. On my face the 88H was way too big a sound.

Tried using the Yamaha in a brass band or wind band where my section is largely ion 547’s, and it was a pretty soul destroying experience.

I think certainly for decent amateurs the 547/525 choice will very much depend on how much you practice, what the other amateur players around you are using and what their level of skill is!

[MrHCinDE]

As a 3BF player, I have no idea what the point of a medium bore is. If I wanted to be lazy or cheap, and play everything on one horn, that would be the horn I'd use. But I can have both a 3BF and a 396-A, and they fit together in one case .... So the medium bore is trying to get hired for a job that doesn't exist.

Having played my 3BF exclusively for a couple of weeks, I’m starting to come around to the same point of view. As commented by my teacher, I was sounding very good on the 3BF that I took to the last couple of lessons, especially considering I had a couple of weeks off and didn’t have any time to practice (apart from lessons/rehearsals) since my return.

It was quite interesting to be playing through some of the Brad Edwards book, Rochut, Grondahl and Bourgeois. I would have never thought to play a Concerto on a 3BF with a smallish mouthpiece (DE LT C+/D3) but was pleasantly surprised.

Might have to thin the medium bores out after all.

[Finetales]

The .525 3BF (3B+F or early 607) might be even slightly better as a do-everything horn than the 3BF. It does everything the 3BF does, but it records even better and has a much beefier low end, all at the expense of only a very slight reduction in high register ease. It can still peel high Fs off the wall, you just need a tiny bit more effort. So in that sense the .525 has use, but that "big small horn" type of .525 is much less common than the "small big horn" type, which I find much more difficult to justify.

[JohnL]

The .525 3BF (3B+F or early 607) might be even slightly better as a do-everything horn than the 3BF. It does everything the 3BF does, but it records even better and has a much beefier low end, all at the expense of only a very slight reduction in high register ease. It can still peel high Fs off the wall, you just need a tiny bit more effort. So in that sense the .525 has use, but that "big small horn" type of .525 is much less common than the "small big horn" type, which I find much more difficult to justify.

Gotta wonder how well a 3B+ with a .508"/.525" dual bore slide would play...

[OneTon]

It seems 0.525 bore trombones retain a niche in the market inspite of Emory Remington and Conn setting a benchmark with the 88H. The 0.525 may enjoy more versatility than a 0.547 and may offer a more appropriate result for some applications. In terms of numbers, the 0.525 is 0.017 inches bigger than a 0.508. The 0.547 is 0.022 inches bigger than. 0.525. So why 0.525: 0.525 bore trombones split the difference between small bore and large bore horns. The closest thing to a “rule” might be brass quintets, brass quartets, and some chamber sized music. The rule is by no means hard and fast. Is the model number for the 0.525 bore Blessing known? Did the Canadian Brass use 0.525 bore trombones, at least for some period of time?

[Matt K]

The .525 3BF (3B+F or early 607) might be even slightly better as a do-everything horn than the 3BF. It does everything the 3BF does, but it records even better and has a much beefier low end, all at the expense of only a very slight reduction in high register ease. It can still peel high Fs off the wall, you just need a tiny bit more effort. So in that sense the .525 has use, but that "big small horn" type of .525 is much less common than the "small big horn" type, which I find much more difficult to justify.

Gotta wonder how well a 3B+ with a .508"/.525" dual bore slide would play...

My 500/525 King with a Getzen 3508Y bell is hands down my favorite horn to play and I’d have no problems taking to brass quintet gigs. It played great with the 607F bell before I had it swapped too. I also have a Getzen 725 (525/547) that’s a fantastic horn that I’d probably take to that same gig instead though. It’s super easy to play but has all the oomph you’d want out of a 547 horn with just a touch of extra character/brilliance.

[cb56]

Is the model number for the 0.525 bore Blessing known?

I think it was B78 for the F attachment. And B7 for the straight horn.

[dukesboneman]

I think over the years with the Music Stores and Teachers (Public and College) pushing the 547 Trombone that the market has pushed the 525 off to the side. Younger and younger kids are being pushed into Too big horns.
I`m a retired Public school Band director and I saw it. I taught in 2 inner city districts , so my kids got what we had.
Mostly the King and Yamaha medium bore student model horns.
Over the years I`ve had 42B`s, 42, 88H, 8H. all nice horns but not really practical outside of an Orchestral or Concert Band setting, in my opinion.
The Medium bore horns, Bach 36 (B) 79H, 78H and I`ve played a Shires Medium bore that I liked, are the best all around horn .
Yes Alessi, Friedman, etc... sound Fantastic on the 547 horns. But in the modern American Symphonic setting , That`s what they have to play. What if Alessi reached a certain age and said , This horn is too much work and showed up for an entire season with a Bach 36? Ralph Sauer downsized

[Finetales]

Gotta wonder how well a 3B+ with a .508"/.525" dual bore slide would play...

I wonder that often. Maybe one day if I have enough surplus 3B/607 slides. Actually, I only need one more 607 slide to be able to do it...