TromboneChat

Quote from: HowardW on May 11, 2017, 01:04AMI'm not convinced, but I don't see any sense in arguing about it. There is definitely something very wrong about this trombone in its present condition, and it's not an instrument that I would consider worth having copied (for any number of reasons). Stew Carter describes this instrument in the cited HBSJ article. Apparently, the upper inner slide tube is in two sections (i.e., repaired at some point of time), and the inner slides tubes consequently of different lengths.

Howard
Hmmm... didn't know we were "arguing" about it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was "worth having copied". Just thought it might be an interesting topic of discussion. Apparently that's not allowed here.

Just because Howard doesn't buy your argument doesn't mean it isn't interesting.

I'm surprised that Will Kimball hasn't chimed in yet.  Maybe he doesn't have a good argument to counter Howard.

Back to the original post, it seems that Alto works well for some composers, particularly late Classical and Romantic.  The instrument fell out of favor after the late 17th Century in most of the world, but has enjoyed a renaissance in the last decade or so.

But I would hesitate to claim the Eb alto is "historically informed".

Should I be using a G Bass for Elgar and Holst?  (Heaven forfend! )

Quote from: BGuttman on May 11, 2017, 03:10AMShould I be using a G Bass for Elgar and Holst?  (Heaven forfend! )

Why? I do from time to time, as well as for Sullivan, Vaughan Williams and others. I may even be doing Walton's Henry V with it later this year.

Speaking of G bass, one of the surviving Viennese classical trombones (1813 if I recall correctly) is a bass in G. Yet I don't know of any source of that era describing such an instrument... Go figure.

Beethoven on a G bass?

when you play a G bass in an orchestra, do the other trombones play small equipment too?

MJL

Quote from: Mark LaFratta on May 11, 2017, 10:35AMwhen you play a G bass in an orchestra, do the other trombones play small equipment too?

MJL

Considering the fact that my G Bass is smaller bore than a typical Symphonic tenor, I would hope so!  It's an even match for a Conn 78H.

Quote from: Blowero on May 11, 2017, 01:54AMHmmm... didn't know we were "arguing" about it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was "worth having copied". Just thought it might be an interesting topic of discussion. Apparently that's not allowed here.
My statements were in no way intended as a slight. I'm sorry if they came across that way.

Howard

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 11, 2017, 06:43AMSpeaking of G bass, one of the surviving Viennese classical trombones (1813 if I recall correctly) is a bass in G. Yet I don't know of any source of that era describing such an instrument... Go figure.

There is a set of three Joseph Huschauer trombones in Florence: an "alto," a B-flat tenor, and a G bass. They are dated 1813, although Huschauer died in 1805 -- his workshop was run by his widow until 1815. These instruments display some anomalies: they apparently were never played on a regular basis and are therefore in almost mint condition; all inner and outer slides are identical in size (11.9 mm/inside diameter); the bells of the alto and tenor have the same bell profile. Two friends of mine, both very knowledgeable, have examined these instruments and come to completely contrary conclusions about the "alto": one says that it was built as an alto, the other says it was tenor that has clearly been cut down.

Howard

Quote from: HowardW on May 11, 2017, 10:58AMMy statements were in no way intended as a slight. I'm sorry if they came across that way.

Howard
I'm just surprised you are being so dismissive now. For someone who talks in great length about the demise of the alto trombone in the 18th century, I would think you would want to examine ANY evidence of them, rather than saying, Oh well it looks strange and one of the inner slide tubes broke so it's not worth arguing about. 

Apparently you went to the trouble of finding the article about it and reading it; is the broken inner tube the only thing you came away with from that article?

Quote from: Mark LaFratta on May 11, 2017, 10:35AMwhen you play a G bass in an orchestra, do the other trombones play small equipment too?

MJL

Absolutely! Paired with a couple of medium bore (maximum 0.500" bore) tenors, it works very well indeed.

Quote from: Blowero on May 11, 2017, 12:22PMI'm just surprised you are being so dismissive now. For someone who talks in great length about the demise of the alto trombone in the 18th century, I would think you would want to examine ANY evidence of them, rather than saying, Oh well it looks strange and one of the inner slide tubes broke so it's not worth arguing about.
I do want to examine ANY evidence, but the evidence at hand for the Fiebig alto trombone is insufficient: the quality of the photos leaves much to be desired, and in any case a few photos cannot substitute for a close, hands-on examination of the actual instrument. Thirty-five years ago, I did visit a number of European museums to examine the instruments first-hand, but soon realized that I had neither the technical expertise nor the equipment to take full advantage. (Nevertheless, I also quickly realized that very few of the surviving instruments were in anything close to original condition -- even in the most prestigious musuems. On the other hand, the level of competence of the museum curators has increased greatly  in recent years, at least in the museums with which I have contact.) So I left the instruments to others who are better equipped to deal with them, and have since concentrated on the documentary and musical aspects.
 
QuoteApparently you went to the trouble of finding the article about it and reading it; is the broken inner tube the only thing you came away with from that article?

Finding the article was no big deal: it's mentioned in the bibliography under the pictures of the instrument on the museum's website, and I have all the issues of the HBSJ within a two-second walk from my desk. And no, the broken inner slide tube was not all I came away with from the article. Stew Carter naturally commented on several things that I already noticed and mentioned in my previous posts, such as the poor workmanship. He also provided the playing characteristics: "Breathy sound; harmonics not in tune; possible air leak."

Howard

Quote from: HowardW on May 08, 2017, 01:21AMI tend to doubt that statistics would be of help here. There are too many things that cannot be calculated, such as the damages and losses caused by war. A case in point: during WW2 the instrument collection in Berlin suffered great losses, but in Vienna, which I think was hit just about as severely by allied bombing and shelling, the instrument collection survived intact. And even efforts to remove valuable collections from metropolitan areas that were obviously endangered often backfired: for example, the music collection of the Royal and University Library in Königsberg was packed up and moved for storage to a mansion in the countryside, which then took a direct hit and burned to the ground.

And of course even trying to determine the provenance of music instruments is often difficult if not impossible. Sure you can say that a trombone with "Nürnberg" engraved on the bell was made in Nuremberg. But where was it after that, before some private collector bought it in the 19th century and later donated it to a museum in Hamburg, for example? At the royal court in Warsaw, in Rome, in Dinkelsbühl? (It's really a stroke of luck that so many instruments from the Viennese court ensemble found their way into Viennese collections and have remained more or less where they had been used.)

This kind of information usually does not exist, or only for the most recent history of an instrument. And even some of that gets lost and forgotten. Another case in point, which is possibly of particular interest to a number of people reading this: The "classical" trombones made by Egger are based on originals in Basel. That is to say, an alto in E-flat and a quart trombone in F both by Schmied (Pfaffendorf) in the Basel Musical Instrument Museum. These were bequeathed to the museum as part of the collection of Wilhelm Bernoulli, a Protestant minister who lived in a castle on the shores of a lake northeast of Zurich (which is where I first saw and played these instruments). Bernoulli kept records of where and when he bought his instruments. -- I'm not sure anymore, but I think he acquired the Schmied trombones in the 1930s or so. -- In any case, the "alto" was actually an alto bell section with the slide of a tenor trombone, a fact that Bernoulli did not record. Fast forward several decades: In the early 1970s, Heinrich Huber, then co-principal trombonist of the Basel Symphony Orchestra, bought a Schmied tenor trombone from the estate of a collector in Germany. This "tenor" was however a tenor bell section with the slide of an alto trombone. After some negotiation, Bernoulli and Huber traded slide sections. About ten years later, in the early 1980s, Bernoulli's collection was transfered to the museum in Basel, so that Raini Egger had a set of "classical" trombones within walking distance of his shop. Neither the "original" condition of the alto with a tenor slide nor the subsequent trading of slides are mentioned in the records of the Basel museum. And even a master's thesis written in Basel in 2010 on early trombones in Swiss collections lacks this information, because the author did not think to contact Huber, who had sold his original Schmied tenor trombone following his retirement, but who would have been more than happy to supply information.

That's why I doubt that statistics would be much use to us in this matter.

Howard

I admire your detailed knowledge of the subject. Yet, I like to point out that statistics becomes especially useful if there is uncertainty. You mention fascinating details of cases, each of which features some missing information. But each features also some limited amount of information. And it is precisely this limited information that should be used in a systematic way to draw conclusions about the history of trombones. Surely we can estimate features of people in a sample of people of a certain age. Why wouldn't we be able to do the same with a sample of trombones?

Let's do a list of all surviving trombones, estimated age, sizes, features etc. Next, let's find some common understanding how long trombones survive on average depending on use, climate, material, craftmanship etc. From this we should be able to estimate bounds on the historical distributions of trombones. It is so straightforward that I would be surprised if nobody done it already.

Another advantage of such an approach is that it would require us to spell out explicitly all assumptions that go into the conclusions. This would be make them transparent for scholarly debate. 

Quote from: HowardW on May 11, 2017, 11:31AMThere is a set of three Joseph Huschauer trombones in Florence: an "alto," a B-flat tenor, and a G bass. They are dated 1813, although Huschauer died in 1805 -- his workshop was run by his widow until 1815. These instruments display some anomalies: they apparently were never played on a regular basis and are therefore in almost mint condition; all inner and outer slides are identical in size (11.9 mm/inside diameter); the bells of the alto and tenor have the same bell profile. Two friends of mine, both very knowledgeable, have examined these instruments and come to completely contrary conclusions about the "alto": one says that it was built as an alto, the other says it was tenor that has clearly been cut down.

Howard

Why would somebody exert the effort to cut down a tenor if there was supposedly no need for altos? Is this evidence for or against altos?

Quote from: Bcschipper on Yesterday at 12:47 AMI admire your detailed knowledge of the subject. Yet, I like to point out that statistics becomes especially useful if there is uncertainty. You mention fascinating details of cases, each of which features some missing information. But each features also some limited amount of information. And it is precisely this limited information that should be used in a systematic way to draw conclusions about the history of trombones. Surely we can estimate features of people in a sample of people of a certain age. Why wouldn't we be able to do the same with a sample of trombones?

Let's do a list of all surviving trombones, estimated age, sizes, features etc. Next, let's find some common understanding how long trombones survive on average depending on use, climate, material, craftmanship etc. From this we should be able to estimate bounds on the historical distributions of trombones. It is so straightforward that I would be surprised if nobody done it already.

Another advantage of such an approach is that it would require us to spell out explicitly all assumptions that go into the conclusions. This would be make them transparent for scholarly debate. 
I think Will Kimball has attempted to do such a thing:

http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/extant-altos/

Quote from: Bcschipper on Yesterday at 12:53 AMWhy would somebody exert the effort to cut down a tenor if there was supposedly no need for altos? Is this evidence for or against altos?

I have no idea why someone would have cut down the tenor. More of a mystery to me is why these three instruments were never played. A possible answer for both questions might be -- but this is really a wild guess -- that the prince (and they did belong to a prince, if I remember correctly) wanted a set of trombones for his cabinet of curiosities and therefore ordered an alto, a tenor, and a quart-bass, not realizing that in Vienna the alto and the tenor were both B-flat instruments. Having received two B-flat trombones and a quart-trombone in F(?), he had one of the local craftsmen cut down one of the tenors to make an alto. And since all three instruments were only for display purposes, they were never played.

Howard

Quote from: Bcschipper on Yesterday at 12:47 AMLet's do a list of all surviving trombones, estimated age, sizes, features etc. Next, let's find some common understanding how long trombones survive on average depending on use, climate, material, craftmanship etc. From this we should be able to estimate bounds on the historical distributions of trombones. It is so straightforward that I would be surprised if nobody done it already.

The information that you demand is simnply not available. And even if you were to go to every museum, to every collector with historical trombones, you would need a lifetime to collect the information. And that's asuming you could even get access to all the instruments, and not just wave to them through the glass of the display cases.

Get going! (I don't have that much time left.)
Howard

Quote from: Blowero on Yesterday at 02:30 AMI think Will Kimball has attempted to do such a thing:

As usual, Kimball merely copied the work somebody else (in this case Trevor Herbert) had done. (Well, at least he did give credit to Trevor.)

Howard

Quote from: HowardW on Yesterday at 06:53 AMAs usual, Kimball merely copied the work somebody else (in this case Trevor Herbert) had done. (Well, at least he did give credit to Trevor.)

Weiner, you make me laugh! Let me issue this challenge: Try to make points without resorting to ad hominem. It will help them be more credible. Engaging fellow-scholars in a respectful way is an important skill!

Quote from: HowardW on Yesterday at 06:43 AMI have no idea why someone would have cut down the tenor. More of a mystery to me is why these three instruments were never played. A possible answer for both questions might be -- but this is really a wild guess -- that the prince (and they did belong to a prince, if I remember correctly) wanted a set of trombones for his cabinet of curiosities and therefore ordered an alto, a tenor, and a quart-bass, not realizing that in Vienna the alto and the tenor were both B-flat instruments. Having received two B-flat trombones and a quart-trombone in F(?), he had one of the local craftsmen cut down one of the tenors to make an alto. And since all three instruments were only for display purposes, they were never played.

Howard

The bass is in G according to Graham Nicholson, a minor third below the tenor, which might explain, if your hypothetical scenario is true (or partially true), why the "alto" was cut down to such a weird pitch as Db (it's supposedly somewhere between Db and C). If we assume it was cut down by someone who doesn't know much about trombones, and they only wanted to approximate the same visual proportions between the tenor and "alto" as between the tenor and bass, that's pretty much the result they should have gotten.

Now it doesn't address the question of why the bass is in G. Howard, do you know of any source of that time that refers to a bass in G?

Bass trombones pitched a minor third lower than the tenor were in use in the time of Praetorius. It is nothing new, but was certainly more prevalent in the British Empire than anywhere else.

Quote from: Blowero on May 17, 2017, 02:30AMI think Will Kimball has attempted to do such a thing:

http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/extant-altos/

Thanks for drawing my attention to the list. Very interesting. Here are some numbers:

"Of the 122 extant pre-19th century trombones with positively identified voice (alto, tenor, bass, etc.), Herbert lists the following:

64 tenors (53%)

30 altos (25%)

22 basses (18%)

4 sopranos (3%)

1 contrabass (less than 1%)

1 “quartbass” (less than 1%)"

Now, 25% sounds a lot to me. My subjective prior would have been less than 5%.

Anyway, it doesn't mean though that 25% of all pre-19th century trombones must have been altos. Let's assume that throughout history altos have been played less than tenor trombones. Then they also have experienced less wear. Moreover, simply by the fact that they are smaller than tenors, they are more easily stored than tenor trombones and should be less likely damaged within any fixed period of time. So altos should have a higher "survival" probability than tenors. Thus, it is probably save to say that the actual pre-19th century share of altos was strictly less than 25%. 

To get closer to the truth we would need more assumptions, which is more transparently captured with the help of a little model.

Let p be the probability of being damaged beyond repair within one year ("yearly loss probability"). Then 1-p is the probability of having survived one year. Assuming that survival is independent across years (an assumption clearly violated in periods of war) and that the yearly survival probability is stationary (which again may be violated because of properties of aging of brass), we have that (1 - p)^n is the probability that an instrument survived n years (survival probability after n years). We can also interpret it as the fraction of instruments surviving n years. Then given q number of instruments today, the number of instruments x some n years ago must be x = q / ((1 - p)^n).

Let's plug in some numbers to get some idea about what could be plausible values for p and x. The median age of the pre-19th century instruments in the list seems to be 300 years (i.e., n = 300). Moreover, we got 64 surviving tenors (i.e., q = 64). Hence,

Yearly loss probability   Prob of survival 300 years  Number of tenors 300 years ago
0.5%                                      22.23%                      288
1.0%                                       4.90%                    1,305
1.5%                                       1.07%                    5,961
2.0%                                       0.23%                   27,438
2.5%                                       0.05%                  127,290
3.0%                                       0.01%                  595,196

What is a plausible number of the number tenors produced 1600 - 1800? Let's pick 27,438 from the list, which corresponds to an average yearly loss probability of 2%.

Now suppose because of less use and wear and smaller size, the average yearly loss probability of altos is half of that of tenors, i.e. 1%. Then we can use the same model with q = 30 (number of surviving pre-19th century altos) to get an estimate of 612 altos produced between 1600 - 1800. Rather small compared to the number of tenors but not negligible.

So based on this quick-and-dirty calculation, one may agree with Howard Weiner that the use of altos is much less than the use of tenors even though we got 30 surviving altos today and 64 surviving tenors. But I would also claim that altos must had their role in that period because the estimated number produced is not negligible. Now, it is clear that this conclusion is based on the assumptions about yearly loss probability, known surviving instruments etc. that are debatable. But the nice thing is that the model makes it transparent how these assumptions are used to derive the conclusion. So rather than alto trombone scholars attacking each other on a personal level, there could be now a scholarly discussion about the assumptions that went into the conclusions and hopefully we could come up with a much better model and thus more well-founded conclusions.

Quote from: Le.Tromboniste on May 17, 2017, 04:01PMThe bass is in G according to Graham Nicholson, a minor third below the tenor, which might explain, if your hypothetical scenario is true (or partially true), why the "alto" was cut down to such a weird pitch as Db (it's supposedly somewhere between Db and C). If we assume it was cut down by someone who doesn't know much about trombones, and they only wanted to approximate the same visual proportions between the tenor and "alto" as between the tenor and bass, that's pretty much the result they should have gotten.

Now it doesn't address the question of why the bass is in G. Howard, do you know of any source of that time that refers to a bass in G?

From that time, I don't know of any sources. But just a decade later, Nemetz refers to bass trombones in F, A-flat, and G that "primarily find use in the military."

Howard

Quote from: wkimball on May 17, 2017, 03:57PMWeiner, you make me laugh! Let me issue this challenge: Try to make points without resorting to ad hominem. It will help them be more credible. Engaging fellow-scholars in a respectful way is an important skill!

Not at all ad hominem. Just an assessment of your "research."

Quote from: Bcschipper on May 18, 2017, 01:51AMThanks for drawing my attention to the list. Very interesting. Here are some numbers:

"Of the 122 extant pre-19th century trombones with positively identified voice (alto, tenor, bass, etc.), Herbert lists the following:

64 tenors (53%)

30 altos (25%)

22 basses (18%)

4 sopranos (3%)

1 contrabass (less than 1%)

1 “quartbass” (less than 1%)"

Now, 25% sounds a lot to me. My subjective prior would have been less than 5%.

Anyway, it doesn't mean though that 25% of all pre-19th century trombones must have been altos. Let's assume that throughout history altos have been played less than tenor trombones. Then they also have experienced less wear. Moreover, simply by the fact that they are smaller than tenors, they are more easily stored than tenor trombones and should be less likely damaged within any fixed period of time. So altos should have a higher "survival" probability than tenors. Thus, it is probably save to say that the actual pre-19th century share of altos was strictly less than 25%. 

To get closer to the truth we would need more assumptions, which is more transparently captured with the help of a little model.

Let p be the probability of being damaged beyond repair within one year ("yearly loss probability"). Then 1-p is the probability of having survived one year. Assuming that survival is independent across years (an assumption clearly violated in periods of war) and that the yearly survival probability is stationary (which again may be violated because of properties of aging of brass), we have that (1 - p)^n is the probability that an instrument survived n years (survival probability after n years). We can also interpret it as the fraction of instruments surviving n years. Then given q number of instruments today, the number of instruments x some n years ago must be x = q / ((1 - p)^n).

Let's plug in some numbers to get some idea about what could be plausible values for p and x. The median age of the pre-19th century instruments in the list seems to be 300 years (i.e., n = 300). Moreover, we got 64 surviving tenors (i.e., q = 64). Hence,

Yearly loss probability   Prob of survival 300 years  Number of tenors 300 years ago
0.5%                                      22.23%                      288
1.0%                                       4.90%                    1,305
1.5%                                       1.07%                    5,961
2.0%                                       0.23%                   27,438
2.5%                                       0.05%                  127,290
3.0%                                       0.01%                  595,196

What is a plausible number of the number tenors produced 1600 - 1800? Let's pick 27,438 from the list, which corresponds to an average yearly loss probability of 2%.

Now suppose because of less use and wear and smaller size, the average yearly loss probability of altos is half of that of tenors, i.e. 1%. Then we can use the same model with q = 30 (number of surviving pre-19th century altos) to get an estimate of 612 altos produced between 1600 - 1800. Rather small compared to the number of tenors but not negligible.

So based on this quick-and-dirty calculation, one may agree with Howard Weiner that the use of altos is much less than the use of tenors even though we got 30 surviving altos today and 64 surviving tenors. But I would also claim that altos must had their role in that period because the estimated number produced is not negligible. Now, it is clear that this conclusion is based on the assumptions about yearly loss probability, known surviving instruments etc. that are debatable. But the nice thing is that the model makes it transparent how these assumptions are used to derive the conclusion. So rather than alto trombone scholars attacking each other on a personal level, there could be now a scholarly discussion about the assumptions that went into the conclusions and hopefully we could come up with a much better model and thus more well-founded conclusions.

I applaud this approach. It has the advantages of objectivity and a significant number of data points. Bravo! It may not be perfect, but it lays bare the data and assumptions and provides a reasonable starting point for overall probabilities. This approach would not work with historically earlier examples like the slide trumpet and Stewart Carter's theoretical shortened Renaissance trombone, since there are few (or no) existing examples of those instruments. However, in the case of alto trombone, there is plenty of data to utilize. More objectivity is absolutely welcome! As you stipulate, not all the data points may be perfect, but we can have a discussion about those individual cases.

Quote from: Bcschipper on May 18, 2017, 01:51AM
Now, 25% sounds a lot to me. My subjective prior would have been less than 5%.
I'm curious as to why that would have been your gut feeling before seeing the data. Nowadays, we regularly perform music from earlier periods, which includes periods where alto trombone was not written for at all. There are almost no dedicated alto trombone players now, because a dedicated alto player would have trouble finding regular work. Alto trombone positions in orchestras do not exist. You would have to freelance or be a soloist. Therefore I would expect a smaller number of alto trombones to exist today, since almost every alto player also plays tenor. But in the 17th and 18th centuries, I don't see any reason to believe there weren't dedicated alto trombone players who made their living playing alto trombone. So I would expect a higher proportion of altos than what we have today.
QuoteAnyway, it doesn't mean though that 25% of all pre-19th century trombones must have been altos. Let's assume that throughout history altos have been played less than tenor trombones. Then they also have experienced less wear.
I wouldn't make that assumption, based on my reasoning above.
Quote Moreover, simply by the fact that they are smaller than tenors, they are more easily stored than tenor trombones and should be less likely damaged within any fixed period of time. So altos should have a higher "survival" probability than tenors. Thus, it is probably save to say that the actual pre-19th century share of altos was strictly less than 25%. 
Perhaps larger instruments are more easily damaged, but players don't throw away their instrument when it is damaged; they usually have it repaired.

Remember, while outdoor concerts may not have used alto trombone, there were some applications where they remained in use.  Moravian Trombone Choirs, and Catholic Churches often used alto trombones.  Plus, there was probably a historical custom of using the alto trombone to reinforce alto voices in choral works.  Probably nobody made a living as an "alto trombone player" -- in fact, many musicians of the period probably played several instruments (especially doubling on an orchestral string).

Quote from: Blowero on May 18, 2017, 12:17PMI'm curious as to why that would have been your gut feeling before seeing the data. Nowadays, we regularly perform music from earlier periods, which includes periods where alto trombone was not written for at all. There are almost no dedicated alto trombone players now, because a dedicated alto player would have trouble finding regular work. Alto trombone positions in orchestras do not exist. You would have to freelance or be a soloist. Therefore I would expect a smaller number of alto trombones to exist today, since almost every alto player also plays tenor. But in the 17th and 18th centuries, I don't see any reason to believe there weren't dedicated alto trombone players who made their living playing alto trombone. So I would expect a higher proportion of altos than what we have today.

I wouldn't make that assumption, based on my reasoning above.

Perhaps larger instruments are more easily damaged, but players don't throw away their instrument when it is damaged; they usually have it repaired.


My impression was that in general trombone players were not primarily trombone players. For instance, one of the most famous trombonists in the 19th century, Karl Traugott Queisser, for whom the David concertino was written, played primarily viola (together with David). I would expect this to be much different pre-19th century.

Yes, players don't necessarily throw away instruments when damaged. But the higher the probability of damage, the higher also the probability irreparable damage or damage that is not worth to repair anymore. Important for my argument is not so much how often instruments get repaired but whether tenors and altos differ in their survival probability.

Anyway, to calibrate these assumptions, I would be interest to hear from experts like Howard Weiner, Will Kimball, Trevor Herbert etc. I think it is important to discuss various views of the assumptions and also check how changes in the assumptions affect the conclusions.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 18, 2017, 12:37PMRemember, while outdoor concerts may not have used alto trombone, there were some applications where they remained in use.  Moravian Trombone Choirs, and Catholic Churches often used alto trombones.  Plus, there was probably a historical custom of using the alto trombone to reinforce alto voices in choral works.  Probably nobody made a living as an "alto trombone player" -- in fact, many musicians of the period probably played several instruments (especially doubling on an orchestral string).

What I was getting at, Bruce, was that today, the alto trombone could be considered as a "double" for the tenor trombone, and only used for certain periods of music, and even then not by all tenor trombone players, so I wouldn't be surprised if the total number of modern alto trombones were only 5% of the total number of trombones in existence. However, I see no evidence to justify making such an assumption about the 17th and 18th centuries. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the standard compliment of a trombone section was considered to be alto, tenor, bass. If you guys have some evidence that alto was just an "occasional use" instrument, I'd like to see it. But I wouldn't just assume it.

As I said earlier, Brad, is that none of us were there.  We don't know first hand exactly what was being played in the pit orchestra for "The Magic Flute".

We have scholarly work by Will Kimball stating that alto trombones existed in the period.  We have other scholarly research by Howard Weiner that the usual compliment of instruments in the early 19th century orchestra was three Bb trombones of different bore sizes called "alto", "tenor", and "bass".  Who is right?  You can see how much fireworks there has been here.

And we have the "re-enactors" trying to figure out what it sounded like by playing copies of whatever seems to have survived the period.  Again, they weren't there; they are making a best guess.  I hope they are right.

Another factor in survivability has to be the fact that the Hundred Years' War occurred in the latter 17th and early 18th Centuries and instruments were very likely used to feed the armaments industry.  So there may not have been many older trombones (or any other brass instrument) surviving.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 18, 2017, 06:34PMAs I said earlier, Brad, is that none of us were there.  We don't know first hand exactly what was being played in the pit orchestra for "The Magic Flute".

We have scholarly work by Will Kimball stating that alto trombones existed in the period.  We have other scholarly research by Howard Weiner that the usual compliment of instruments in the early 19th century orchestra was three Bb trombones of different bore sizes called "alto", "tenor", and "bass".  Who is right?  You can see how much fireworks there has been here.

And we have the "re-enactors" trying to figure out what it sounded like by playing copies of whatever seems to have survived the period.  Again, they weren't there; they are making a best guess.  I hope they are right.

Another factor in survivability has to be the fact that the Hundred Years' War occurred in the latter 17th and early 18th Centuries and instruments were very likely used to feed the armaments industry.  So there may not have been many older trombones (or any other brass instrument) surviving.

Well, no. I believe it is Howard's contention that Bb instruments were used to play alto parts in VIENNA in the 18th and early 19th centuries, not all over the world, for all time. So, your comments about survivability not withstanding, I still await your evidence that the alto trombones that have survived from the 17th and 18th centuries were for some reason played less than the surviving tenors. Maybe they were; I just don't feel you guys have made the case for that yet.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 18, 2017, 06:34PMAs I said earlier, Brad, is that none of us were there.  We don't know first hand exactly what was being played in the pit orchestra for "The Magic Flute".

We have scholarly work by Will Kimball stating that alto trombones existed in the period.  We have other scholarly research by Howard Weiner that the usual compliment of instruments in the early 19th century orchestra was three Bb trombones of different bore sizes called "alto", "tenor", and "bass".  Who is right?  You can see how much fireworks there has been here.

And we have the "re-enactors" trying to figure out what it sounded like by playing copies of whatever seems to have survived the period.  Again, they weren't there; they are making a best guess.  I hope they are right.



My "best guesses" are based on research and investigation. And also musical taste and "what works". And lastly what instruments I can afford to own and earn a little money using.

Quote from: Blowero on May 18, 2017, 09:47PMWell, no. I believe it is Howard's contention that Bb instruments were used to play alto parts in VIENNA in the 18th and early 19th centuries, not all over the world, for all time. So, your comments about survivability not withstanding, I still await your evidence that the alto trombones that have survived from the 17th and 18th centuries were for some reason played less than the surviving tenors. Maybe they were; I just don't feel you guys have made the case for that yet.

That is Howard's contention indeed, and he list few other places where he believes the alto was usurped. I've been researching Leipzig lately. Trombonists were used at the Gewandhaus of course from the early 19th century, since the Beethoven symphonies and various otrher classical pieces with trombones (like Mozart requiem and Magic Flute Overture) were performed there, BUT the first permanent trombone section was appointed as late as 1842. They were designated as Alto, Tenor and Bass trombonist, and their names were Burck, Mai and Kogel. It's very possible that the alto trombonist Carl Gottlieb Burck specialized only on the alto, but we can't be certain. What IS likely is that he didn't only play trombone. If he was brought up in the standard Stadtpfeiffer (Town band) tradition, as were the virtuosi Belcke and Queisser, Burck would have been capable of playing all sorts of instruments. Don't forget his famous colleague Queisser who also was an extraordinarily talented multi instrumentalist. Principal viola of the Gewandhaus Orchestra, Concertmaster of the Euterpe orchestra, virtuoso soloist on the bass trombone (in B flat...), and was reputedly able to play all other wind and string instruments well. And his brother was a much admired (esp. by Wagner) trumpeter in Dresden. I don't believe Queisser played the trombone in the orchestra, by the way... they only had four violas... Before 1842 the trombonists would have been brought in from the remnants of the Town Band or were maybe military musician or were simply journeyman musicians travelling about getting work wherever they could. In fact the bass trombonist between 1842 to 1876, Gottfried Kogel, had already been playing in the orchestra from 1833 as an extra player. 43 years!

Interesting topic! Sorry for the OP he's probably wondering what can o'worms he's opened.

So then a full time trombone player wasn't really a thing. Thanks for educating me on that, guys. Very interesting stuff.

Quote from: Tim Dowling on May 18, 2017, 10:37PMInteresting topic! Sorry for the OP he's probably wondering what can o'worms he's opened.


No, just sitting back munching the popcorn.   

Quote from: BGuttman on May 18, 2017, 06:34PMWe have scholarly work by Will Kimball stating that alto trombones existed in the period.  We have other scholarly research by Howard Weiner that the usual compliment of instruments in the early 19th century orchestra was three Bb trombones of different bore sizes called "alto", "tenor", and "bass". 
Bruce, you are oversimplifying here. I have never claimed that alto trombones did not exist in this period. Rather, I have tried to show that alto (and bass trombones) were used in some places and not in others. If you read my article again (I'm assuming that you've already read it) you will notice that I attempted to reconstruct the trombone performance traditions in Paris, London, Leipzig, Salzburg and Vienna on the basis of documentary and musical evidence.

In the appendix, I provided the extended findings of my research in tabular form -- there you can see that I postulated the use of trombone sections made up of alto, tenor, and bass trombones in early 19th-century Berlin and London, and in 18th-century Leipzig and Salzburg (in Leipzig sometimes also with soprano trombone); and the use of trombone sections made up of three B-flat trombones in late 18th- and early 19th-century Italy, Paris, and Vienna.

And as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them.

Howard

Quote from: HowardW on May 19, 2017, 06:26AM
And as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them.

Howard

That's a very broad statement. Are you sure you don't want to temper it? Nobody? Any evidence at all? You really should temper that statement.

Quote from: wkimball on May 19, 2017, 06:43AMThat's a very broad statement. Are you sure you don't want to temper it? Nobody? Any evidence at all? You really should temper that statement.

I see no need to qualify my statement.

Quote from: HowardW on May 19, 2017, 08:24AMI see no need to qualify my statement.


I really think you want to qualify that statement. It's a very sweeping statement. I think you need to temper it.

Quote from: HowardW on May 19, 2017, 06:26AMAnd as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them.
Howard

You said you see no need, but you are definitely going to want to qualify or temper such a sweeping statement.

What are the assumptions you're making that you should include in your statement to qualify it?

For example, by come forward, do you mean in the journal that you edit? Some other set of journals? This particular forum?

By any evidence at all, do you really mean just conclusive evidence? Just compelling evidence? Documentary evidence? Or do you honestly mean any contravening evidence? (Remember, in reasoning and academics, evidence and proof are two different things.)

You're going to want to qualify that statement to include those sorts of assumptions. This is the type of thing we spend a lot of time on with graduate students: refining the thesis. A thesis that is too broad or vague is often a mess.

I came forward as a doctoral student with a critique of one of Howard's articles.  He was a jerk about it, in much the same way he's toying with being one here, and I decided it wasn't worth my time to "fight" someone who wasn't able to concede an alternate side to a point.  I daresay his prickliness repels good-natured criticism.

I think we are arguing at cross purposes.

Did alto trombones exist in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?  Sure.  We even have examples.  We also know there were certain venues that continued to use them.

Were they used by Beethoven/Schubert/Mozart?  Who really knows?  We have indirect evidence in both directions.

Tim Dowling played the Schumann 3 excerpt on a mid 19th century alto.  Was it used for the premiere?  Who knows?

Silverbone wondered whether an alto was more historically accurate.  He is actually asking the wrong question.  Does an alto fit the part?  The answer there is "yes".  And if it sounds good and fits the part, what difference does "historically accurate" mean in a modern performance.  Especially if the strings are not using gut, and the trumpets and horns have valves.

Now if we are trying to reproduce the Leipzig Gewandhus Orchestra at the time it premiered a work, that is another matter entirely.

As it stands, objectively, all a person would have to show is a single contravening piece of evidence ("any evidence at all"), and the thesis is shot. That is why I think he must want to qualify it.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 19, 2017, 01:09PMI think we are arguing at cross purposes.

Did alto trombones exist in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?  Sure.  We even have examples.  We also know there were certain venues that continued to use them.

Were they used by Beethoven/Schubert/Mozart?  Who really knows?  We have indirect evidence in both directions.

Tim Dowling played the Schumann 3 excerpt on a mid 19th century alto.  Was it used for the premiere?  Who knows?

Silverbone wondered whether an alto was more historically accurate.  He is actually asking the wrong question.  Does an alto fit the part?  The answer there is "yes".  And if it sounds good and fits the part, what difference does "historically accurate" mean in a modern performance.  Especially if the strings are not using gut, and the trumpets and horns have valves.

Now if we are trying to reproduce the Leipzig Gewandhus Orchestra at the time it premiered a work, that is another matter entirely.

Nope, no cross purposes. Merely looking closely and objectively at a very broad statement by Weiner that should be analyzed. No ad hominem or red herring distractions. Let's explore his sweeping statement before moving on: "And as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them."

Quote from: BGuttman on May 19, 2017, 01:09PM
Were they used by Beethoven/Schubert/Mozart?  Who really knows?  We have indirect evidence in both directions.

I think a better question, and one that I think is getting lost in the argument about who played what, is "What instrument were they WRITING for?" A composer doesn't always get the performance that he intended when he wrote the piece. For example, there seems to be evidence that some pieces were played without trombones at all. Does that mean the composer intended for the piece not to have trombones? Not necessarily. Someone mentioned earlier that trombone parts were crossed out because they had no one to play them.

So let's say that so-and-so, who used a Bb tenor trombone to play first trombone parts, played a piece written by Mozart at a particular concert. Does that mean Mozart wrote the part for a Bb trombone? I don't think that necessarily follows. We often make choices as musicians as to what instrument we want to use for a particular part. We may have the composer's input on that, but usually not. Why would it have been any different then? It seems to me it should be just as important to understand the composer's intent and how the part functions in the ensemble as to know who played what horn at the time.

Quote from: HowardW on May 19, 2017, 06:26AMAnd as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them.
Howard

Below is some contravening evidence. I believe it fits within the category of "any evidence at all."

Having read the article thoroughly, checked many of its sources, and visited with other scholars, I find more than a dozen reasons that Weiner’s conclusions are unconvincing. There is a pattern of oversimplifying and inconsistently utilizing sources (see items 2-7, below), faulty logic (see items 1, 8 and 9, below), and failure to account for contravening evidence (see items 10-14, below):

1) It is based on only one solid source (Nemetz). The others that he uses are contradictory or unclear at best (e.g., Frölich); see here: http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/treatises-on-alto/
This is what David Hackett Fischer famously calls the “fallacy of the lonely fact.” A careful historian will be extremely cautious about generalizing from a single data point.

2) Weiner even oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Nemetz. While stating unequivocally multiple times in the article that Nemetz places all three trombones (alto, tenor, and bass) in the key of B-flat, Weiner never mentions that Nemetz also includes a bass trombone in F (“bass or so-called quartposaune”) in his method book. In fact, Nemetz dedicates two full pages to that non-B-flat instrument, including text, a slide position chart, and practice scales. Weiner’s discussion of the “absence” of the quart trombone in Vienna would have been a particularly relevant place for this contradictory information from Nemetz.
For a graphic from Nemetz of bass trombone in F, see here: http://kimballtrombone.com/2013/06/13/answer-to-blog-comment-on-alto-trombone/

3) Weiner oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Praetorius. I believe Maximilien has also spoken of this in this forum. For details, see here:
http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/praetorius-on-alto-trombone/

4) Weiner oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Berlioz. Although Weiner includes a partial sentence from Berlioz’s treatise (“it is unfortunate that the alto trombone is currently banned from almost all French orchestras”), he fails to mention that, in the same treatise, Berlioz clearly places the alto trombone in E-flat (“small trombone, or alto trombone in E-flat”). This is important because Weiner uses Berlioz as one of just two sources to prove that the alto trombone was considered a B-flat instrument in Paris (for the other source, see #5, below). I believe Maximilien has also spoken, in this forum, about problems with Weiner's representation of alto trombone in France.

5) Weiner oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Kastner. While paraphrasing Stewart Carter’s paraphrase of Kastner, he overlooks the qualifier “in general” and fails to mention that in the same source (Kastner’s Supplement of 1844), Kastner clearly places the alto trombone in E-flat or F (see the harmonic series in E-flat and the harmonic series in F on p. 40 of the Supplement). And the fact that Kastner likewise places the alto trombone in E-flat in his original treatise of 1837 can only be found buried in a footnote in Weiner’s article (see Kastner’s position chart on p. 313 of the original treatise). This oversimplification is significant because Weiner uses Kastner as one of just two sources to prove that the alto trombone was considered a B-flat instrument in Paris (for the other source, see #4, above).
For graphics from both Kastner sources showing alto trombone, see here:
http://kimballtrombone.com/2013/06/13/answer-to-blog-comment-on-alto-trombone/

6) Weiner misconstrues Albrechtsberger’s treatise by applying false tones inconsistently. Whereas Weiner is at pains to allow for false or “falset” tones in his discussion of bass trombone—his statement that “I contend that the Viennese trombonists were versed in the use of falset tones” is accompanied by three pages on the practice—the idea is apparently off the table when it comes to alto trombone. Anyone with any kind of playing experience on alto trombone knows that false tones are particularly easy in the low register, the register in question, not to mention the fact that the single note in question would only need to be bent down a single half step. It is unclear why Viennese trombonists would have been well versed in false tone technique on the bass trombone but not on the alto trombone.

7) Weiner inconsistently uses Seyfried’s edition of the Albrechtsberger treatise to buttress his own argument that the bass trombone is pitched in B-flat, while conveniently discounting Seyfried’s clarification that the alto trombone is pitched in E-flat. If Seyfried is credible on bass trombone, it is not clear why he should not be trusted on alto trombone. This kind of special pleading and inconsistent use of sources is a problem throughout Weiner’s article.
For a graphic from Seyfried's edition of Albrechtsberger showing an alto trombone in E-flat, see here: http://kimballtrombone.com/2013/06/13/answer-to-blog-comment-on-alto-trombone/

8) Weiner argues from his own personal aesthetic opinion as a premise in the article:

“It therefore follows that a tenor trombone in B-flat or A would have been the virtuoso’s preferred instrument because of its superior tonal qualities. (While there are surely trombonists today who make a nice sound on the E-flat alto, I would contend that they, too, make an even nicer sound on the B-flat tenor.)”

Superior tonal qualities? Even nicer sound? Not only is this loaded language, it is neither sound reasoning nor good history. Historians will have their own aesthetic opinions, of course, but when they use their opinion as the premise of an argument, they run aground.

9) Weiner makes a faulty historical generalization from the opinion of one (Praetorius) to many (“any self-respecting eighteenth-century virtuoso”). As I point out above (#3), the generalization from Praetorius is additionally precarious because the partial sentence from Praetorius is already an oversimplification—of the both the sentence itself and of Praetorius’s overall writings about the alto trombone. Again, this is neither sound reasoning nor good history. Furthermore, Weiner’s faulty generalization is stretched chronologically from Praetorius (early 17th century) all the way to any hypothetical virtuoso of the 18th century, a century later! So there are actually three glaring logical problems in just one paragraph: 1) generalizing from one to many, 2) generalizing from an oversimplified statement, and 3) generalizing from one century to another. Here is the full paragraph from Weiner’s article; the non sequiturs absolutely pile up:

“My reasoning for discounting the use of the alto trombone in D or E-flat: It is my belief that any self-respecting eighteenth-century virtuoso would have chosen an instrument that helped him make the most beautiful sound possible. Given the trombone’s physical development, or lack thereof, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I know of no reason why Praetorius’ judgement, that ‘the sound in such a small corpus is not as good as when the tenor trombone, with good embouchure and practice, is played in this high register,’ should not also apply to the small alto trombone of the eighteenth century. It therefore follows that a tenor trombone in B-flat or A would have been the virtuoso’s preferred instrument because of its superior tonal qualities. (While there are surely trombonists today who make a nice sound on the E-flat alto, I would contend that they, too, make an even nicer sound on the B-flat tenor.)”

10) Weiner misses entirely the Brahms letter in which the highly influential and respected composer notes his preference for the alto trombone and indicates what a “genuine” alto trombone was considered to be at the time: “On no account 3 tenor trombones! One genuine little alto trombone and, if possible, also a genuine bass trombone.” Emphasis in original; see here for more details: http://kimballtrombone.com/2009/08/07/a-remarkable-brahms-letter-genuine-little-alto-trombone/

This information is particularly relevant because Weiner’s claims in the final sentence of the article actually refer specifically to Brahms:

“The newly introduced E-flat alto trombone was most likely not intended to be used for the works of the ‘modern’ composers Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, etc., but for the ‘alto’ trombone parts of the classical masters, parts for which the new large-bore tenor trombone was not suitable.”

In addition, although Weiner’s article focuses on the trombone section of the 18th and early 19th centuries in his article, a number of the “historical sources” that he introduces as backing fall well outside of those date ranges (e.g., 1620, c. 1650, 1687). The date of Brahms’s letter (1859) is far closer to Weiner’s date range than any number of the sources presented in the article.

11) If alto=tenor had been true in the widespread way that Weiner suggests, both chronologically and geographically, there should be widespread evidence of that philosophy or viewpoint in contemporary and later treatises, dictionaries, methods, trade catalogs, etc. It is simply not there to the extent that it should be. Of course, absence of evidence does not of itself constitute evidence. However, in this case, the reverse pattern of written sources is observable: the bulk of the written evidence points to a widespread view of the alto trombone as a smaller instrument pitched in a higher key.
See here for treatises, dictionaries, and methods: http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/treatises-on-alto/
See here for 19th century trade catalogs: http://kimballtrombone.com/2012/12/19/alto-trombone-in-19th-century-trade-catalogs/

12) Weiner ignores the evidence of existing instruments from the period. A full 25 percent of all existing trombones from before the year 1800 are alto trombones; see here for dates, locations, amounts, and  percentages: http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/extant-altos/
Even if you adhere strictly to Weiner’s date range of 18th and early 19th centuries (which, as I discuss in #10, above, Weiner himself fails to do), you still have a significant number of alto trombones to account for.  The idea that these were primarily amateur instruments lacks documentation: it remains to be shown that amateurs like Moravians used the alto trombone to any greater extent than they used tenor (that is to say, take away the tenor trombones also used by amateurs and you very likely end up with the same overall ratios).

13) Many, many other good historical sources contradict Weiner’s alto=tenor idea, clearly placing the alto trombone in a different, higher key. For example, Weiner uses two sources to prove that the alto trombone was considered a B-flat instrument in Paris; however, not only do those two sources themselves contradict such a conclusion (see #4 and #5, above), but three more primary sources from 1840s France contradict it as well:
http://kimballtrombone.com/2016/06/13/alto-trombone-1840s-france-five-primary-sources/
In fact, the broad historical picture is that, for every historical source that clearly indicates an alto in B-flat, there are at least five contradictory primary sources that clearly indicate an instrument pitched in the E-flat orbit. See here: http://kimballtrombone.com/alto-trombone/treatises-on-alto/
See also #11, above.

14) At the risk of ad hominem, several active professionals have expressed this concern: Howard Weiner is not an active trombone performer. I would question whether he has publicly performed any solo work on the alto trombone in the last 20 years (if ever), let alone whether he has played it on both alto and tenor trombone. In addition, I would question whether he has sufficient performance experience on both instruments to determine for other trombone players which is easier (or more “idiomatic”). For example, having the partials of a brass instrument closer together in a given register (as on tenor) can be helpful, at times, but so can having the partials farther apart (as on alto). Ornamentation is one of a brass performer’s concerns, but so is accuracy and security. I was amused to read recently a passage in a trombone history book where another supposed historical “expert” explained to readers that certain works were more idiomatic on tenor trombone than alto trombone; this from a person who had admitted in an online forum that he never actually learned the alto trombone!

(munch, munch, munch -- popcorn is good, Silverbone!)

Will, I don't think that use of falset tones on alto would make much difference; I doubt altos were used in place of tenors on 2nd trombone parts (except in emergencies).  I do agree that I have an easier time playing falset tones and even pedals on my Conn 36H alto.  But that is neither here nor there.

Based on the two pictures I have seen of Moravian ensembles in the 19th Century, there were probably 2 (or maybe more) tenors for every alto (or soprano).  So I would expect more tenors to survive than altos.

I'm sure some composers were writing for alto trombone even if the parts were played on a tenor.  Berlioz' Symphony Fantastique 1st trombone part being a case in point.

Again, dealing with Mr. Silver's original question, whether to use alto or not depends on (1) how the part fits on an alto and (2) how well you can execute the part on the alto trombone.  Modern players can play nearly the same upper range on either instrument so that becomes less of an issue.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 19, 2017, 07:33PM
Will, I don't think that use of falset tones on alto would make much difference; I doubt altos were used in place of tenors on 2nd trombone parts (except in emergencies).  I do agree that I have an easier time playing falset tones and even pedals on my Conn 36H alto.  But that is neither here nor there.


Agreed. I take your point. My point with falset tones and alto is this: In his discussion of Albrechtsberger's original treatise, Weiner discusses possible use of falset tones at length in order to assert that Albrechtsberger's bass trombone was in B-flat. However, he rules out the alto trombone in E-flat (for Albrechtsberger's original treatise) on the basis of a single note that could easily--very easily--be played as a falset tone; for some unexplained reason, the possibility of a single falset tone is off the table for alto trombones.

Additional evidence in favor of alto in E-flat for the Albrechtsberger treatise is that Albrechtsberger's personal pupil, Seyfried, who, besides studying with Albrechtsberger, was born in Vienna, musically trained in Vienna, spent his entire orchestral conducting career in Vienna, conducted many important works in Vienna, and died in Vienna, clearly places the alto trombone in E-flat in his edition of his teacher's treatise.

Quote from: BGuttman on May 19, 2017, 07:33PMBased on the two pictures I have seen of Moravian ensembles in the 19th Century, there were probably 2 (or maybe more) tenors for every alto (or soprano).  So I would expect more tenors to survive than altos.

Pictures are great, and I agree that they can contribute to the conversation. However, you should look at Stewart Carter's article—he shows pretty clearly that Moravians tended to purchase their trombones in sets of soprano, alto, tenor, bass (Stewart Carter, “Trombone Ensembles of the Moravian Brethren in America,” in Brass Scholarship in Review, 1999).

I suspected that something like this was coming.

Quote from: wkimball on May 19, 2017, 07:15PM14) At the risk of ad hominem, several active professionals have expressed this concern: Howard Weiner is not an active trombone performer. I would question whether he has publicly performed any solo work on the alto trombone in the last 20 years (if ever), let alone whether he has played it on both alto and tenor trombone. In addition, I would question whether he has sufficient performance experience on both instruments to determine for other trombone players which is easier (or more “idiomatic”).

Let's get this out of the way first: It is true that I have not performed any solo work on alto trombone in the last 20 years. In fact, I have not played any trombone at all in the past 20 years. Between 1997 to 2001 I went through a series of serious health issues that effectively put an end to my performing career: after the tenth operation within 4 1/2 years, I was KO and and decided it was time to call it quits. In the 20+ years before I got sick, I played modern tenor and bass trombones, as well as early alto, tenor, and bass trombones (a.k.a. "sackbuts") in a wide range of music from Renaissance to avant-garde (even including a Europe-wide live broadcast performance of Mauricio Kagel's Music for Renaissance Instruments) in professional ensembles and orchestras.

As far as alto trombone is concerned, I played an F alto sackbut in a number of performances in the Chicago area between 1972 and 1978; from 1978 I was located in Switzerland, where I had an E-flat alto sackbut at my disposal, which I likewise used in a number of performances. When I later teamed up with colleagues who preferred playing alto, I had no problem relinquishing the alto parts to them -- the bass trombone parts in the Classical repertoire are often much more fun. So yes, I have had sufficient performance experience on both instruments.

Quote1) It is based on only one solid source (Nemetz). The others that he uses are contradictory or unclear at best (e.g., Frölich)

My study and my conclusions were based on a large number of sources, which of course doesn't preclude contradictions. In fact, in my article I pointed out the contradictions in the sources and tried to explain and resolve them. Your claim that Fröhlich is contradictory or unclear is patently false -- Fröhlich clearly states the situation at the time he was writing (1813, republished 1829): that is to say, in some places alto, tenor, and bass trombones were used, and  in other places three tenor trombones were used. Which brings us to

Quote10) Weiner misses entirely the Brahms letter in which the highly influential and respected composer notes his preference for the alto trombone and indicates what a “genuine” alto trombone was considered to be at the time: “On no account 3 tenor trombones! One genuine little alto trombone and, if possible, also a genuine bass trombone.” Emphasis in original.

and

This information is particularly relevant because Weiner’s claims in the final sentence of the article actually refer specifically to Brahms.

My article was about the use of trombones in the 18th- and early 19th-century orchestra. Brahms was thus not included in my study. In spite of the timeframe given in the title of my article, I considered it necessary to present earlier sources in the introductory section in order to show that the terminology was and had never been uniform. But more to the point, at the end of my article, after my conclusions, I added an epilogue in which I proposed a "hypothesis for further research on the alto trombone," for research that should include but also go beyond the timeframe I attempted to cover. In this hypothesis, I included information I had came across during the course of my research as well as some possible implications. It was not intended to be more than a call for others to start doing some research.

The Brahms letter that you refer to is indeed interesting. However, I tend to try to read between the lines. Thus, Brahms did indeed say

“On no account 3 tenor trombones! One genuine little alto trombone and, if possible, also a genuine bass trombone.”

But this also tells us 1) that Brahms knew that the trombone section made up of three tenor trombones had become all but ubiquitous by the mid-1800s, and 2) that he knew that he had to request/demand a small alto and a genuine bass if he wanted them. In effect, Brahms confirms what Fröhlich had said some 40 years earlier: in some places alto, tenor, and bass trombones were used, in other places three tenors.

I have often wondered what Brahms's reaction was when he arrived in Vienna and discovered that the Viennese trombonists not only didn't have alto trombones, but also only played valve trombones, and that the orchestral sections there were made up of two tenors and one bass. A price list from the important Viennese brass instrument maker Leopold Uhlmann from ca. 1850 lists the following trombone models:

Tenor or alto trombone in b-flat
Terz or bass trombone in g
Quart or bass trombone in f
Quint or bass trombone in e-flat

"Tenor oder Alt Posaune in b" with rotary or Viennese double-piston valves! Since Uhlmann was "purveyor to the court," his instruments would have been used by the court chapel and by the court opera orchestra (which was also the Vienna Philharmonic). Slide trombones (including an alto) were reintroduced in Vienna only in 1883, just in time for the premiere of Brahms's Third Symphony.

Quote2) Weiner even oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Nemetz. While stating unequivocally multiple times in the article that Nemetz places all three trombones (alto, tenor, and bass) in the key of B-flat, Weiner never mentions that Nemetz also includes a bass trombone in F (“bass or so-called quartposaune”) in his method book.

Yes, Nemetz does devote two pages in his method to the quart trombone in F, A-flat, and G, saying that it "primarily finds use in the military." Since my article was about orchestral trombone sections, I did not include this military band instrument. Moreover, I previous published an article on Nemetz's trombone method, including a full translation, which I duly cited.

Quote3) Weiner oversimplifies and thus misrepresents Praetorius.

This is really a tempest in a teapot! Praetorius wrote: "Alto or descant trombone: ... with which a melody can be played very well and naturally, although the sound in such a small corpus is not as good as when the tenor trombone, with good embouchure and practice, is played in this high register."

This is how I quoted Praetorius in my earlier article on the soprano trombone. In the article on 18th- and 19th-century trombone sections, I left off the first phrase:

"the sound in such a small corpus is not as good as when the tenor trombone, with good embouchure and practice, is played in this high register."

Quite frankly, I cannot see how this can be construed as an oversimplification and misrepresentation. Praetorius's opinion of the sound of the alto trombone vs that of the tenor trombone is what I was concerned with; the prefixed "with which a melody can be played very well and naturally" has no effect on this statement. On the contrary, the conjunction "although" indicates that what follows is a qualification of the first part of the sentence.

Moreover, this and
Quote8) Weiner argues from his own personal aesthetic opinion as a premise in the article:
concern a text that does not have to do with the actual subject of the article, a text that is a clearly marked "Excursus--The solo alto trombone." I simply felt that I should say something about the solo alto trombone, and allowed myself a few subjective comments. Mea culpa!

Quote9) ... Furthermore, Weiner’s faulty generalization is stretched chronologically from Praetorius (early 17th century) all the way to any hypothetical virtuoso of the 18th century, a century later!
As I admitted a year ago, I should have formulated this better. I was in no way claiming that Praetorius's statement had any currency or was even still known 150 years later. I was simply opining that an 18th-century listener of Praetorius's musical acumen would probably also have noted the difference in sound quality between an alto and a tenor "played with a good embouchure and practice" in the high range.

More to come... if I find the time.

All that is fine and good. Much of it is debatable. We can do that later. However, the question at hand is this thesis of yours--whether it is accurate or whether it needs to be tempered or qualified in any way:

"And as I've mentioned before, in the twelve years since the publication of my article, a number of people have criticized or even taken umbrage at my conclusions, but nobody has come forward with any evidence at all to refute them."
Howard"

[My emphasis]