TromboneChat

Blaming the situation on Remington and the 88H blatantly overlooks the tradition of large-bore instruments in American symphonic playing that had been growing since the late-1800s. It might be apt to say that Remington helped spread the influence of the American-style instrument through the 88H, but he was no fountainhead by any measure. The transition happened first in basses, with tenors following suit, and the trend was pretty well established by the time the 88H was introduced.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Feb 21, 2017, 04:13AMBut your argument also outlines the problem we're discussing here. Problem? Perhaps not a problem-- more likely a trend lasting some 65 years. You quite clearly write that you make the choice of instrument with the student. So, the student will always do what the teacher wants. Of course they will.
YOU recommend their instrument. And who will the student trust?-- their own inexperienced self, or a successful professional? End of that argument for "free will" given freely to the student.

It is a fallacy. The student is free to play whatever they choose as long as they are phenomenally successful with their choice. But if they know how to play already, then they are not a student. A vicious circle.

I make recommendations.    They, their parents, and/or their loans make the decisions.   

When someone asks you for a recommendation, don't you always start with what you prefer?  Most people recommend what they prefer; that's pretty natural.  I don't force students to do anything.  I don't lower their grades or kick them out of the studio if they pick horn B, C, or D when I might recommend A.  But whatever they choose needs to lead them down the path toward whatever level/type of employment they're seeking or they've wasted their money.  I encourage students to attend the state Music Educators convention and play every horn in the exhibit hall.  It's part of them figuring out what they like.  And just because they might decide on a .547 horn based on my recommendation doesn't mean they're stuck with it for life.  That's what gets lost in these discussions.  Just because a university professor recommends something it doesn't equate to a life sentence on that horn.  People should grow and develop enough over time as musicians to learn what they need.  When you figure out something doesn't work, change it.

Let's go outside of music for an analogy.  I'm a sedan guy.  If someone asks me for a generic car recommendation, I'll go sedan first.  I know sedans, I like sedans, they fit what I do and need.  Now if they tell me they want to haul tons of kids and cargo or go off-road, I'll change my rec.  I won't force them to buy a sedan.  If they buy something and later decide it doesn't fit them, they sell/trade it in and get something that works better.  Life moves on, people evolve and grow, and people's needs change. 

I try to be very careful not to force students into a particular horn.  In fact, I almost went to a particular university but changed my mind partially because one teacher wanted me to play a different horn and mouthpiece than what I'd auditioned on (and been accepted on and offered scholarship on).  It was off-putting to essentially be told I was good enough to get in but that my equipment (a very good Elkhart 88H at the time) wasn't "correct" in that teacher's opinion.  So I went somewhere where the teacher worked with what you had and have been better for it.

Play what works for you and whatever musical scenarios you seek. 

Quote from: MrPillow on Feb 21, 2017, 07:19AMBlaming the situation on Remington and the 88H blatantly overlooks the tradition of large-bore instruments in American symphonic playing that had been growing since the late-1800s. It might be apt to say that Remington helped spread the influence of the American-style instrument through the 88H, but he was no fountainhead by any measure. The transition happened first in basses, with tenors following suit, and the trend was pretty well established by the time the 88H was introduced.Not just trombones. You see it in other instruments, too. The rise of the French horns in the Kruspe Horner style (Conn 8D's and the like). Bigger tubas (Chicago York, anyone?). Remington was far from the first person to use a larger-bore trombone for orchestral playing. Gardell Simons was using an 8H in the 1920's.

There's an exhaustive discussion of the rise of the modern "symphony-bore trombone" in this thread:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,19093.20.html

You want to popularize smaller-bore trombones for the orchestral rep? It's simple.
1) Get really good on a modern orchestral tenor.
2) Get a job as principal with a major orchestra.
3) Start playing you preferred smaller horn exclusively.
4) Take on a bunch of students and guide them toward playing smaller horns.
5) Have them win jobs with major orchestras playing those smaller horns.

I said it was simple. I didn't say it was easy.

Quote from: MrPillow on Feb 21, 2017, 07:19AMBlaming the situation on Remington and the 88H blatantly overlooks the tradition of large-bore instruments in American symphonic playing that had been growing since the late-1800s. It might be apt to say that Remington helped spread the influence of the American-style instrument through the 88H, but he was no fountainhead by any measure. The transition happened first in basses, with tenors following suit, and the trend was pretty well established by the time the 88H was introduced.

Bryan, I concede the trend but not the standard.  The general increase in trombone sizes in American orchestras had as much to do with the German(ic) musicians playing German and German-inspired instruments than some general taste for a larger instrument.  I think the standardization of the large tenor as the "orchestral tenor" has a pedagogical underpinning.  Remington didn't invent the large bore tenor, but he went a LONG way towards standardizing it.

I don't have a clue about this but in the history is there any that use say a Bach 36 as the main horn? Or won an audition on it?

Leif

Quote from: savio on Feb 21, 2017, 08:46AMI don't have a clue about this but in the history is there any that use say a Bach 36 as the main horn? Or won an audition on it?

Leif

Sure.

Jacob Raichman played principal in the Boston Symphony on a Bach 36.  Hansotte, his 2nd, played a Conn 8H with F.  Johannes Rochut (Principal in the 1920s) played an even smaller instrument.

There is a famous picture of the Boston Symphony Orchestra trombone section of around 1910 showing the three of them with Holton-made German style trombones.

Quote from: JohnL on Feb 21, 2017, 08:33AMYou want to popularize smaller-bore trombones for the orchestral rep? It's simple.
1) Get really good on a modern orchestral tenor.
2) Get a job as principal with a major orchestra.
3) Start playing you preferred smaller horn exclusively.
4) Take on a bunch of students and guide them toward playing smaller horns.
5) Have them win jobs with major orchestras playing those smaller horns.

I said it was simple. I didn't say it was easy.

It's like winning a trumpet audition with a Monette. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean that you should never use one when you get a good grip on your principal position.

I played my .525 horn when I got called to sub in the local symphony in December. Nobody knew or cared, but I felt like a little bit of a rebel inside.

Quote from: MikeBMiller on Feb 21, 2017, 01:31PMI played my .525 horn when I got called to sub in the local symphony in December. Nobody knew or cared, but I felt like a little bit of a rebel inside.

Were you playing first or second?  What was on the program?

Quote from: MrPillow on Feb 21, 2017, 07:19AMBlaming the situation on Remington and the 88H blatantly overlooks the tradition of large-bore instruments in American symphonic playing that had been growing since the late-1800s. It might be apt to say that Remington helped spread the influence of the American-style instrument through the 88H, but he was no fountainhead by any measure. The transition happened first in basses, with tenors following suit, and the trend was pretty well established by the time the 88H was introduced.

It was always my understanding that Remington advocated the 88H because it could pass as a bass trombone well enough that his students didn't need to specialize right away. Ray Premru, after all, went through Eastman as a tenor trombonist, then went to London and won two auditions - London Philharmonic 2nd trombone and Philharmonia bass trombone - on his 88H. Then got himself a bass trombone after accepting the Philharmonia job.

Incidentally, I've always wondered this...does anybody know what bass trombone Ray played before 1963 when the Holton 169 was introduced? If I understand the chronology correctly, he had about 5 years in the Philharmonia job by that time. I know he didn't like Conn basses, and maybe that was the result of struggling with one during that time.

Quote from: Steven on Feb 21, 2017, 02:47PMWere you playing first or second?  What was on the program?

2nd. Lots of Christmas music. I have a Rath R3 slide with R4 8.5 bell and large shank lead pipe. The only way you would know it's not 547 is with some calipers.

What about a Williams?

Just something I've been wondering lately and then this thread came up in my feed. People who have played/heard a Williams .500, do you think a horn like that could make it through an orchestral audition? It does have that big sound...

I could see playing a 3B/F once in a while, depending on the program. I did play my .525 on a few concerts when I played principal last year. But, I also love the sound of my .547 Shires in the orchestra. It's all good.

If one is going to try an squarely blame Remington for the standardization of the large bore trombone in the American school of trombone playing, then perhaps we should also blame him for putting out scores of remarkable players during his time at Eastman as well. We should also blame him for a pedagogy which has thrived in one way or another for well over 40 years past his death.

I studied with Ralph Sauer for 5 years. He never pushed the 88H on me, and he also commented once that Remington never pushed the 88H on any of his students. More often than not, the students simply gravitated that direction.

I like Chris Stearn's summation of the current orchestral climate.

If you want to change the way things are done in the trombone community, it doesn't start with the lowest people on the totem pole. If you're a student, amateur, administration, etc. you're not in a position to change the status quo. Want to change things? Prove that you're able to be a consummate  musician on anything you're holding in your hand, win that big orchestra job, start putting out a fleet of successful musicians, and THEN start trying to initiate a paradigm shift.

As an aside, if you assert that someday you will not have 4 hours a day to practice and thus cannot create a beautiful sound on a large bore instrument, then you're spending those 4 hours now focused on the wrong things. A beautiful sound is not about effort.

If you're working hard, you're doing it wrong.

Quote from: JBledsoe on Feb 21, 2017, 10:30PM
A beautiful sound is not about effort.

If you're working hard, you're doing it wrong.


 

Quote from: JBledsoe on Feb 21, 2017, 10:30PMIf one is going to try an squarely blame Remington for the standardization of the large bore trombone in the American school of trombone playing, then perhaps we should also blame him for putting out scores of remarkable players during his time at Eastman as well. We should also blame him for a pedagogy which has thrived in one way or another for well over 40 years past his death.


I don't think blame is the right word here.  As I noted, good and bad are subjective.  Physical dimensions are not.  If you want to know why, in 2017, that sub-.525 horns aren't the standard anymore in American and European orchestras, then Remington and his students are clearly at the center of the pedagogical movement that shaped the modern trombone sound. 

I still maintain that most players that sound great on large tenors do so because they sound great, and not because the bigger trombones help them.  Ralph Sauer, who Josh mentioned, moved to a smaller instrument because it required less work to get the sound to the back of hall.  He sounded amazing on his LP recordings with an 8H.  He sounds amazing on his .525 and .525/.547 horns.  But I bet he'd admit that a beautiful sound with less effort is always a worthy goal. 

It takes work to make it sound easy. At least in my experience.

Quote from: Ellrod on Feb 22, 2017, 08:46AMIt takes work to make it sound easy. At least in my experience.

Sounding easy feels easy... but you're right... it takes a lot of work... a LOT... and a few days off and it's gone....

Perhaps a good analogy would be balancing on a tightrope? The mission is to not go wrong - which, when one has the skill down pat, feels easy because the considerable under-the-surface learned precision is being deployed near instinctively. When one doesn't, it suddenly feels very hard, and the consequent growth of self-doubt makes things even worse.

So wait... if I switch to the Ralph Sauer dual bore I still have to put in work each day? That can't be right based on what I'm reading here.

Rats!

There's no free lunch.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Feb 22, 2017, 09:36AMSo wait... if I switch to the Ralph Sauer dual bore I still have to put in work each day? That can't be right based on what I'm reading here.

Rats!

I don't think anybody's saying that, even jokingly.  But it's a fact that it takes a different energy requirement to play a larger instrument.  It's not a free lunch, but it is a reduced-price lunch. 

Quote from: Stan on Feb 22, 2017, 09:45AMI don't think anybody's saying that, even jokingly.  But it's a fact that it takes a different energy requirement to play a larger instrument.  It's not a free lunch, but it is a reduced-price lunch. 

Why is it so much harder to play well on a small bore then? It might take less air but it takes considerably more concentration and finesse.

I recently retired from Teaching and we moved to FL. I`ve since been asked to play in a very good Trombone Quartet and a large Brass Ens.
For the first time in years I have a need for a Large Bore horn. For years I didn`t own one because, I didn`t need one.
Now that I`m older (and hopefully wiser) I GET how to play a larger horn. In college and beyond I could never really get into playing .547 horns.
I had a lot, a couple good 88H`s , 8H, 42. 42B and a Benge 190. They were all good horns but I couldnt do them justice.
Now I bought 4 months ago a used 42BO. It`s looks like hell but plays like a dream .
I now understand Jay Freidman`s comment on how he plays that huge set-up . (and I paraphrase) "I play it like it`s a small bore horn".
I now don`t approach the larger horn any differently that the smaller horns and it works for me
Just my 2 cents
 

When talking about getting an exciting sound it's often more about thickness/weight of the bell than bore size.

For grins, a few years ago I brought both my 16M and my Edwards to a local youth symphony rehearsal that hired brass/woodwinds for concerts. I switched from the large horn to the Bach about halfway through, and switched back a few minutes later; the sound was all wrong from the section. I personally preferred playing the smaller horn and the conductor didn't seem to care, but the section sound was just not right.

Quote from: fsgazda on Feb 22, 2017, 10:50AMWhen talking about getting an exciting sound it's often more about thickness/weight of the bell than bore size.

Or even more likely, the approach of the musician playing the instrument.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Feb 22, 2017, 11:06AMOr even more likely, the approach of the musician playing the instrument.

Nobody can argue with that. No instrument will make or break a musician. The argument here, as far as I can see is about timbral colours and shapes. Nobody wins an orchestral audition with a small bore trombone. That's a standard. The question is, whether the timbres and colours that can be naturally created with a small bore tbone can be use adequately in symphonic/opera settings.

Quote from: bonenick on Feb 22, 2017, 11:49PMThe question is, whether the timbres and colours that can be naturally created with a small bore tbone can be use adequately in symphonic/opera settings.

Oh, we know the answer to that: yes, they can. At professional level they were in the past, and sometimes are today. Various pro sections (particularly in chamber orchestras) these days use equipment downsizing to good effect, which is a trend I like the results of and motivation for.

The question that's being debated here seems to be more along the lines of "Can we conceive of smaller equipment thriving in the larger settings to the point where it starts to command a market share that starts to rival large bores?", and "Can we <ditto> to the point where it ceases to be a disadvantage in audition situations?".

So, much of this is obvious and/or already said in this thread, but I'll offer my answer:

The basic difficulty is that a smaller instrument in a large bore section has challenges tonally matching. If you come in on 2nd trombone with something smaller, how well does the section sound work the first time you lay out a big fortissimo together? 1st bone has more scope to downsize without upsetting the balance, higher in the chord as they are.
One could imagine a scenario where if enough 1st trombone players started playing medium bores as their go-to equipment, then 2nds and basses would go down to match. But we're a long way from that culturally.

I am not a professional player. Sure, people give me money to parp regularly, but I don't seek it out, and it isn't my income. Proper pros have significantly greater consistency in their playing, because they have to. But still, I ask myself what I do with my fixing hat on... I fix for quite a decent brass band (the other two trombonists are music college graduates), and fix low brass for various amateur orchestral situations, centring around the upper available end of the 'I play for them because the music's good and the standard isn't terrible' level. And I must say that I am contributing to the status quo in what I do - players that I know will show up with smaller equipment I will book carefully to suit repertoire. I need a 2nd trombone for some Mahler to sit between an 88H and me on my bass? I'm not going to book the player who always brings a King 3B or even a Bach 36, no matter how technically accomplished and musically sensitive they are. I need a tenor player of either flavour to go to a brass band contest with a piece that's a big modern blow? Ditto, even more so. The blend/balance won't be what's expected.

What I will do is, when the opportunity musically arises, discuss possibilities of downsizing the whole section together. But very often individual players will veto such suggestions, preferring the familiarity of their regular instruments. I think we will be comfortably enjoying our large bore trombone sound culture for a while yet. I rather hope to live to see the next change, but I'm in my late 30s now, and the landscape is only minorly changed from what it was when I was learning to play as a child. This equilibrium seems relatively stable.

I'll second that, Dave.

I've been fixing for various amateur London orchestras for longer than I care to remember now. I do have the luxury of suggesting which instruments would work well in different repertoire situations and given that the vast majority of those occasions involve either a small or concert orchestra, possible with a chorus, it goes without saying that smaller instruments are often well suited to that performance situation. Not for the first time, out will come either two B flat tenors and a G bass or the German set of ATB trombones (either B flat/F or F bass), as these are particularly well suited to use in the smaller orchestra (though the German trombones will work well even in a large orchestra).

It's horses for courses. Some modern, full-time, professional orchestras (e.g. London Philharmonic, Royal Opera House) will downsize as the repertoire demands. Ultimately it's down to the section and the conductor. Unfortunately, the large bore trend set in mainly because of conductors in the jet-set age expecting the same results everywhere they went, while before that (we're talking pre-WWII) conductors didn't have that luxury, so even orchestras such as the Concertgebouw were able to use the G bass regularly.

Quote from: Edward_Solomon on Feb 23, 2017, 02:18AM
Unfortunately, the large bore trend set in mainly because of conductors in the jet-set age expecting the same results everywhere they went, while before that (we're talking pre-WWII) conductors didn't have that luxury, so even orchestras such as the Concertgebouw were able to use the G bass regularly.


In the last 40 years there's been a convergence of sound and styles going across all musics to making everything sound uniform, and orchestras certainly haven't been excluded. If so many orchestras sound similar, it's going to be ever more difficult to justify their funding, and ultimately their existence.

Is this smaller bore a Brit thing?

Yes, market share. Money talks.

A friend has played a prototype Rath R5. .543 bore slide. Not .547. Supposedly it was an attempt to capture the best qualities of a Conn 88H that mimicked a Bach 36. My Eastman trained prof always said that the closest horn to a Conn 88H , that was a non-Conn, was a Bach 36B.
Why didn't the Bach 36B rival the 88H? Because the Elkhart 88H was superior in every way.
Valve pull to bE, more ergonomic slide, and a sound to die for.

The Rath website still lists the R5 leadpipe as an option to purchase. It was designed for a lost .543 bore horn. The beginning of a lost trend.

Take note that the commonly available red brass Rath bell Conn-clone 845 isn't there any more.
Another experiment that market share devoured.

At one point tenors were smaller. The King Symphony designed for the Cleveland Orchestra was .536/ .546...but it played huge because it was a clone of  a German trombone and had a 9" bell, so numbers and specs don't account for much.

.543 vs. 547...? .004" difference? That's still a .547 tenor built imperceptibly out of spec.

It's a fifth of the way between 547 and 525. Subtle, but I'd expect to feel that.

Btw, by "market share", I meant the fraction of players playing smaller stuff; I wasn't talking about fashions driving development priorities, although that's an interesting topic in itself.

I have brought in a small tenor to play first on some orchestral works. Chavez Symphony #2 goes sailing up to a high E on a solo. Much easier on a smaller horn.

I like the idea of other orchestral rep on small tenor. Even some alto parts work nicely on small tenor, if you get a nice sound on the horn.

You have to PRACTICE small bore horns!! Too many people think of the small tenor as a "jazz" horn. It can be and tends to be more popular in those idioms but listen to Charlie Loper, Jim Pugh, Miles Anderson and others and you will hear a great sound. Period. And it's a sound that is refined and just as "legitimate" as a great big tenor sound.

The late Byron Peebles asked then LA phil conductor Zubin Mehta to go out in the hall to hear Byron play a few different instruments for feedback. Byron played a series of excerpts and solos on a Bach 42, a Conn 88h and a Bach 36.

Mehta chose the 36. Hands down.

I'll be doing a strange combination of works in little over a week's time. The orchestra has programmed Strauss Till Eulenspiegel and Debussy Images in the same concert and they demand very different styles of sound and approach. Trombones have all agreed to switch from large bore TTB instruments in the Strauss to small bore TTT for the Debussy. The difference in sound is tremendous.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Feb 23, 2017, 04:26AMAt one point tenors were smaller. The King Symphony designed for the Cleveland Orchestra was .536/ .546...but it played huge because it was a clone of  a German trombone and had a 9" bell, so numbers and specs don't account for much.Not just a 9" flare, but a generally larger instrument all the way back through most of the neckpipe.

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Feb 23, 2017, 04:26AMAt one point tenors were smaller. The King Symphony designed for the Cleveland Orchestra was .536/ .546...but it played huge because it was a clone of  a German trombone and had a 9" bell, so numbers and specs don't account for much.Not just a 9" flare, but a generally larger instrument all the way back through most of the neckpipe.