Large bore (.547) horns in big bands

[tbdana]

Do you like 'em? Do you use a large bore horn in big bands? What advantages do you think they have for this kind of playing?

I don't like .547 bore horns in big bands. But I see a great many community players using them, claiming it gives a "bigger sound." I don't think that's correct. They give a less focused, woofier sound that doesn't mesh well in a big band, imho. And they are generally less nimble, especially in the hands of community players. Do you disagree with this?

[claf]

I dislike it a lot on 1st or 2nd.
That's what is done in the Dave Holland big band and it's not bringing a "big band sound" to my ear.
On 3rd, it can be interesting on some modern arrangements, but I still prefer a .525 (think Andy Hunter with the WDR big band).

[SwissTbone]

Generally I think it destroys the bug band sound. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

Why? The trombones get buried by the trumpets and the saxes. Doesn't happen with small bores as they project better. And they blend better with the trumpets.

[hyperbolica]

Pet peeve of mine for sure. I've got a couple of friends (who are old enough to know better) who play big horns on lead all the time. I've listened to them from the audience and from within the section, and you just can't hear them. The sound is too dark, and it gets lost in that mid-range miasma. You'd have to play the dickens out of a large bore to make it right on lead. That's not how the big band form evolved, and to try to retrofit big bones into big band just doesn't work. Smaller horns articulate with bite, and have a brighter sound that you can distinguish from an out of tune tenor sax. 547 in older style bands would be suitable for 4th parts.

[Posaunus]

I have used a 0.547" bore on 4th trombone parts in big bands. I think it works well for a lot of the literature that we play. These are mostly "swing bands", playing for parties and dances - not "show bands" to display our virtuosity. So our bands' repertoire does not include "modern" arrangements which require a true bass trombone - often a double-valve bass. I do disagree with using a 0.547" bore on the upper trombone parts - that negatively affects the section blend / balance.

If the arrangements only have three trombone parts - stick with small-bore tenors!

By the way, I don't think my 0.547" bore sound is "woofy" - nor am I much less "nimble." (But it would be totally inappropriate for big band lead!)

[Bach5G]

It can work, I suppose. The three trombonists in the Dave Holland Big Band all played .547. But they were Robin Eubanks, Jonathan Arons, and Joshua Roseman. Not who you might find in your typical community big band. And maybe more consistent with Holland’s sound world i.e. dark.

A very good player, grad of a well-respected Florida school, came out to our community big band with his .547 to play lead one morning. Wrong sound, dragged. Unconvincing high range. Sounded good in the excerpt he played when he warmed up though.

One of the pleasures of playing third is complete freedom with respect to gear. Let’s face it.They’re usually happy to simply have someone actually show up to play third. Depending on such variables as what doesn’t need to be packed up and doesn’t require me to sort through my DE mpc components, I might show up with my .547, with or without a trigger. Or my beater 2B. I once covered bass trombone on my .525 trigger horn/Schilke 51 and got compliments on my great bass trombone sound from the director who probably ought to have known better.

[BGuttman]

I think the biggest travesty is having the big bore horn on top of some smaller bore horns for the lower voices.

I played lead on a big horn, but it was not satisfying. I can see using small bores on 1st and 2nd and the symphonic bore on 3rd. I've also seen "graduated" sections with a small bore on top, 0.500" (12.7 mm) bore on 2nd, medium or large bore on 3rd, and bass on 4th. Definitely not the sound that was appropriate for the Swing Era, but worked for more modern stuff.

[Kevbach33]

I don't like large bore horns on 1st or 2nd, even though that's kinda where I'm at in both jazz bands I play in. One, a community band, has a couple large bores, a 3BF and [gasp!] a valve bone on the upper parts (don't quote me on the order yet). The big band is a 3B, 88H, 3BF and myself on bass in that order; the 3BF player (not the same as the community band 3BF player) wants to only play 3rd in this group, and I won't fight that. It's just hard for me to hear the 2nd bone.

The big band book we play is varied; a large bore can work on 3rd for some of the arrangements we play, and I did that (on my Holton 168 with a 5GS and then a 5GL, not too big by any means to me) before the bass chair was open. No one knocked me for the large bore sound on those charts.

Not all 3-part charts are intended for an all-small section... Some need a larger (but not necessarily bass) instrument on the bottom.

[tbdana]

I play a .509 bore in big bands. It’s perfect for that.

[dwcarder]

I play in a few community bands and to a first approximation people just show up with what they have, so that's a big factor with managing things. I would add to that an underlying perception that small bore straight tenors are student horns, so they get sidelined after high school.

My large bore horn is really really dark. I would be careful and not call it woofy though. It will also light up when you ask it but those dynamics would swamp the section. That symphonic sound ... is just not a big band sound.

[Burgerbob]

Community groups can use whatever- if it gets people playing music, it's good.

[pbone3b]

I've been dying to bring my 7H w/Sl2547 (dual-bore slide) to a big band rehearsal (lead) to play it out. My 3b gets all the love and gets out of the house all the time, but my 7H never does This is a very timely thread! I'm second-guessing the whole thing.

[Posaunus]

I've been dying to bring my 7H w/Sl2547 (dual-bore slide) to a big band rehearsal (lead) to play it out.

8H?

Suggest NOT using for lead. Too big. You'll unbalance the section. Save it for 4th trombone part or another ensemble.

[pbone3b]

8H?

Modified 7H, takes 8H slide

[MrHCinDE]

I played lead on an Edwards T-350 for a year or so, it was all I had at the time. The 2nd and 3rd played on large tenors also and we didn‘t usually have a bass. In the context of that group, I liked playing lead on that beast since the alternative was not to play at all. On some charts I jumped down to cover some important bass parts that neither of the others could play. It’d be a bit of a leap to say that’s an advantage but in those specific circumstances it was very occasionally useful to have the large tenor. I’m very far from being a good lead or bass player but everything is relative and you make the best of the people you have available.

A few years later in another community group I was mainly playing 3rd on a Conn 88ht and we didn’t have a regular bass trombone. Sometimes a dep arrived with a tenor and no interest in the bass part so I would happily play it on the 88h. This kind of thing happens a lot in community groups.

Of the two horns, the relatively nimble 88ht was much better than the heft of the T-350 for 3rd and upwards, I actually didn’t mind the extra weight of the T-350 on 4th, though this may be a niche view!

[Posaunus]

8H?

Modified 7H, takes 8H slide

Aha. Didn't see this in your Profile. I've never seen a Conn 7H - must be pretty rare.

Too me, still seems too big for big band lead.

[TubaDavey]

All about using the right tool for the right job. Can you use a 5lb sledge hammer for nails to hang up pictures in the house? sure, but.... why?

[Posaunus]

All about using the right tool for the right job. Can you use a 5lb sledge hammer for nails to hang up pictures in the house? sure, but.... why?

Some trombonists do not have all the tools appropriate to the job.
(And apparently some bands can't even find anyone who wants to play 3rd trombone!)
So I guess when you're shorthanded (or have a limited toolbox), you get along with what you have available.

[GGJazz]

Hello all .

To me , generally speaking this statement ( small bore horn is better for big band) may seem to be correct .
But , in my opinion , is not like you are a jazz player , or a good lead player , because of the bore of your horn. You are a good jazz/ big band / lead player if you have the right rhytmic drive , and the right ideas to play this music .

I do not think that large bore horns plays unfocused , or dark , etc . Do the good classical player sound like this ? Do Joe Alessi , Jay Friedman , Jim Miller , Michael Becquet , etc , have dark , not projected , not focused sounds ??

So , I guess that it depends on the player attitude ; if a player feel better on a large bore horn ( rather than with a small bore one ) , then he have to perform on it , and it will results fine , playing in a jazz big band also .

When I was stùdying with Phil Wilson , he told me that from many years he was playing only on large bore horns. At the time , he had a 0.547 Yamaha Custom . Often he joined the bands , and his tone was above all ..
I also listened , many years ago in Rome , to the Carnegie Hall Big Band , leaded by Jon Faddis . The trbn players were Steve Turre ( on medium bore , I think ) , Slide Hampton ( on large bore) , Robert Trowers ( on large bore also ) ; I do not remember the bass trombonist name . They was cutting the band...!

Conversely , in my opinion you can play in Symphony Orchestra with a medium bore horn , if you have the right style , and if you feel better with this kind of horn .

Regards
Giancarlo

[Finetales]

There are always exceptions (players, horns, situations), but in general I strongly oppose using a .547 in any chair in a big band. It's just not the right sound.

I think the only way it works is if all 3 tenors are on them and are playing rep where it makes sense, such as dark/brooding modern European big band stuff.

[GGJazz]

Hi again.

Well , to me , there is not only one ABSOLUTE right kind of sound , playing jazz music , even on Count Basie' stuff .
Rather , there is an ABSOLUTE right way to play on the time , in my opinion .

Regards
Giancarlo

P. S. : I do not knew at all the word " brooding" !

[tbdana]

I do not think that large bore horns plays unfocused , or dark , etc . Do the good classical player sound like this ? Do Joe Alessi , Jay Friedman , Jim Miller , Michael Becquet , etc , have dark , not projected , not focused sounds ??

To be more clear, I'm referring to the sound of the big horn in the context of the big band ensemble. In big bands, the sound gets swallowed up, and sounds unfocused and woofie. Obviously large bore horns can sound amazing in the right context. But that context is not a big band IMHO. In a big band you need more core and sizzle than you get from most .547 bore horns.

Frankly, I don't like the sound of peashooters (under .500 bore). They are too bright and brittle for my taste, and they lack depth at volume. Yet in a big band they can sound fantastic.

It's all about the context.

[Posaunus]

There are always exceptions (players, horns, situations), but in general I strongly oppose using a .547 in any chair in a big band. It's just not the right sound.

Not possible for some of our big band / swing band charts, which often have the 4th trombone play below the staff. (e.g., Dave Wolpe arrangement of "Makin' Whoopee" which ends with a low C.) Requires at least an F-attachment and a good low-range sound. Large-bore 4th trombone is quite appropriate for many of these arrangements (including Sammy Nestico's).

[GGJazz]

Hi.

@Tbdana ; I see your right points ; I was referring too to the sound of large bore horns in a ensemble.
Of course the context matter , but in my personal opinion it depends mostly on the player ; some can get a lot of core and clearity with 0.547 bore .

I am curious about the " sizzle" you was talking about : listening to great lead players such Lawrence Brown , Dickie Wells , Jack Jenney , Urbie Green , etc , I am not sure about this aspect .
Their sounds are great , with maybe some "bite" on the front of the tone when request ( as on strong shorts attacks , etc) , but the " sizzle"..?

Regards
Giancarlo

[ghmerrill]

... Dave Wolpe arrangement of "Makin' Whoopee" which ends with a low C.)

Wolpe seems to like the low C, but there are others (and those who like the low B). The bass trombone tag at the end of the Wolpe arrangement of "Blueberry Hill" ends with that C -- and it HAS to be in tune. I'm looking at an arrangement of "Days of Wine and Roses" (arr. Dave Barduhn) with a lot of low Cs in it. In his arrangement of "Satin Doll", Nestico has a lot of the Cs as optionally below the staff (which sounds much better). Etc. And there are also just a lot of arrangements with low Ds and Dbs as well.

Things changed over the years. I don't know about wanting a .547 in the 3rd seat (I'm not convinced that's "necessary" or "better"), but there seem to be a bunch of the later arrangements where you want a .562 in the 4th.

[Finetales]

There are always exceptions (players, horns, situations), but in general I strongly oppose using a .547 in any chair in a big band. It's just not the right sound.

Not possible for some of our big band / swing band charts, which often have the 4th trombone play below the staff. (e.g., Dave Wolpe arrangement of "Makin' Whoopee" which ends with a low C.) Requires at least an F-attachment and a good low-range sound. Large-bore 4th trombone is quite appropriate for many of these arrangements (including Sammy Nestico's).

.547 is not the right sound for the 4th book either.

[Jimkinkella]

Community groups can use whatever- if it gets people playing music, it's good.

I absolutely agree with Aidan.

But also probably not.
Sitting last in a 2 or 3 trombone dance band section maybe?

As discussed above it's absolutely possible with the right players in the right situation, but there's a good chance most of us won't be in that particular situation.....

[SamBTbrn]

Interesting topic as always Dana!
It has to depend on context. Old style bigband and dance bands probably not. The more modern you get the more use it is to have at .547 on 3rd trombone, where trombones are starting to be used more orchestrally at times. Hang Gliding by Maria Schneider is a great example of this or some of the bombastic charts by Tim Davis.

For profession settings, it's more important to choose the right gear for the right setting and music. For community groups dito as above.

[jacobgarchik]

Seems like this comes up every few years.

boy, lots of across the board pronouncements on here.

"Big band" has been many things.

Yes i generally agree that acoustically you don't really want .547 on a 1st part.

Yes that rule has been broken from time to time. probably more times than you think.

I'm not up on exactly who plays which bore, sometimes people have dual bore or 525 with a bigger bell, but I would guess that many of the east coast guys just use their horns that they always do to do big bands...so like any big band with Robin, Turre, Steve Davis, Roseman, Dave Gibson, Slide, Curtis Fuller back in the day, George Lewis, Ray Anderson, Frank Lacy, I mean that's many many hundreds of big bands right there. Who are we to tell Slide Hampton or Curtis Fuller not to have 547s in big bands. These people created the music we are talking about.

Anyway, I played a .547 in big bands on 6 albums that were nominated for Grammys. 1 won.

[Matt K]

Honestly, this is one area that I'm surprised the way things turned out the way they did. It's pretty common for trumpet players to double on flugelhorn and for sax players to double on flute or clarinet (OR OBOE I've even seen!). While the difference between large and small bore isn't as big as a tenor sax to oboe... the difference is definitely there. Given how many great composers are also trombone players (Sammy Nestico immediately comes to mind), I'm a little surprised that there isn't more sonic variety called for explicitly in scores.

In big band context, I often see mutes (especially cup and bucket) to soften trombones, something a large bore might do more effectively - if timbral modification isn't the overarching goal. On a ballad, if the trumpet section is on flugels, it doesn't seem like it would be a stretch to break out the large bore for that rather than a small bore in a cup - at least some of the instances that I've seen it in.

The Kenton band occasionally pulled in a Tuba part too; I've seen that a few times and it's a really cool effect when orchestrated right. I'm honestly a little surprised to have never seen a euphonium double in the mix as well (specifically on big bands, not pit work). Sure, it might have been harder at times to find someone who had a euph, but I can't imagine it would be easier to find a tenor sax player who also even owned an oboe

[Finetales]

There are some charts out there where the tenor parts double euph and the bass part doubles tuba. Definitely far from standard practice though.

[Fidbone]

I think one must look at the history of the trombone, that is to say big bands typically used small bores back in the early 1900’s and sonically sounded wonderful live and on recordings….. But hey, guess what? Symphony Orchestra’s, Concert bands and brass bands also used small/ medium bores back then, Large bore trombones didn’t come along until around the 50’s and later and were only seen in the Symphony orchestra!
Why has the large bore become seemingly more popular in today’s various settings?
Is it trend? Ease of playing? Better sounding?
Here in the UK I’ve only seen smaller bore trombones in professional big band settings however in Community big band and amateur or semi pro bands I’ve seen plenty.
On the other hand in the Symphony Orchestra I’ve only seen large bores unless they are playing earlier works that require original instruments.

I’m in the right tool for the right job camp and change accordingly

[Digidog]

Why has the large bore become seemingly more popular in today’s various settings?
Is it trend? Ease of playing? Better sounding?

I'd say the transition to larger and larger instruments has to to with a concurrence of increased venue sizes, increased potential for louder dynamics in the modern instruments, and an accomodation of both players and audiences of a generally noisier over all environment.

I mean, it's not very profitable to do a symphonic concert with, like, 80 musicians in a venue that accomodates 100 in the audience. The techniques and materials for building louder instruments have taken significant leaps from, like, the 30's, and the techniques for playing them have also, but maybe not equally much, developed. All the while when the financial conditions for setting up and pursuing professional orchestras have made it necessary to play for larger and larger audiences, and the general environment, both outside and indoors, urban and rural, personal and public, has gotten much more noisy and sound polluted.

I’m in the right tool for the right job camp and change accordingly

Me too. I concur.

Regarding large bores in Big Band settings, I'm all for experimenting; trying out new compositions of the trombone section to see what timbres, sounds, colours and dynamics come up. Imagine a composition with a medium bore lead, one large bore on second, a bass trombone in third and a contra bass trombone in the fourth. One could imagine the Big Band equivalent of Niebelungen with such a section; think of the weight of sound in loud passages!

Well; some day I may give such a section a go in a suitable chart. I already have composed some charts with alto lead (they are all playable on a regular small bore horn, with substitute parts included), so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

[Dreaming away..... ]

[Posaunus]

Correction:

Regarding large bores in Big Band settings, I'm all for experimenting; trying out new compositions of the trombone section to see what timres, sounds, colours and dynamics come up. Imagine a composition with a medium bore lead, one large bore on second, a bass trombone in third and a contra bass trombone in the fourth. One could imagine the Big Band equivalent of Niebelungen with such a section; think of the weight of sound in loud passages!

Hmm. I don't think that our typical big band audience (wedding reception, anniversary or birthday party, charity fundraiser gala, ...) would react positively to that. (Though I would love to play or hear it!) Our audience would prefer to dance, drink, and enjoy our (now old-fashioned) music. With 3 small-bore tenors and a large-bore or bass trombone on 4th.

Side note: Our band gets most of those gigs around here. The "show bands", who play more modern or experimental charts have more fun practicing (as I do when I sub in them), but they don't get hired. We've decided to accommodate our audience.

[Fidbone]

Regarding large bores in Big Band settings, I'm all for experimenting; trying out new compositions of the trombone section to see what timres, sounds, colours and dynamics come up. Imagine a composition with a medium bore lead, one large bore on second, a bass trombone in third and a contra bass trombone in the fourth. One could imagine the Big Band equivalent of Niebelungen with such a section; think of the weight of sound in loud passages!

Hmm. I don't think that our typical big band audience (wedding reception, anniversary or birthday party, charity fundraiser gala, ...) would react positively to that. (Though I would love to play or hear it!) Our audience would prefer to dance, drink, and enjoy our (now old-fashioned) music. With 3 small-bore tenors and a large-bore or bass trombone on 4th.

Side note: Our band gets most of those gigs around here. The "show bands", who play more modern or experimental charts have more fun practicing (as I do when I sub in them), but they don't get hired. We've decided to accommodate our audience.

You’ve accidentally quoted me as saying that ……… It wasn’t me

[tbdana]

Regarding large bores in Big Band settings, I'm all for experimenting; trying out new compositions of the trombone section to see what timbres, sounds, colours and dynamics come up. Imagine a composition with a medium bore lead, one large bore on second, a bass trombone in third and a contra bass trombone in the fourth. One could imagine the Big Band equivalent of Niebelungen with such a section; think of the weight of sound in loud passages!

Well, let's not forget the composer/arranger in this. For me, the question would be what the writer intended. That's it.

[Bach5G]

Do you think the composer/arranger worried about this?

[Digidog]

Hmm. I don't think that our typical big band audience (wedding reception, anniversary or birthday party, charity fundraiser gala, ...) would react positively to that. (Though I would love to play or hear it!) Our audience would prefer to dance, drink, and enjoy our (now old-fashioned) music. With 3 small-bore tenors and a large-bore or bass trombone on 4th.

Well, let's not forget the composer/arranger in this. For me, the question would be what the writer intended. That's it.

One could imagine the Big Band equivalent of Niebelungen with such a section; think of the weight of sound in loud passages!

The bold section is what my intention was with the last section of my post.

@Posaunus: People don't dance to Niebelungen either, so that imagined composition would not primarily be for dance, unless it as a side effect comes out to be suitable as a dance chart.

And @tbdana: It was just a hypothesized situation, where the purpose with my speculative trombone section would be to achieve Wagnerian might of the section, and maybe an awe inspiring force of sound in an otherwise sound-wise extensive composition for Big Band.

[CBlair]

Another interesting discussion initiated by tbdana.

Nobody mentioned what I often hear from many big band tenors-- that they want a smaller bore simply because it's lighter to hold.

That's said, it's hard not agree those who believe the sound is what ultimately matters. Listening to a recording I am not necessarily influenced by minor bore variations, if I could even differentiate it; however, in a live performance, as a patron and especially as a participant, I like to see three small bore tenors and a bass. Appearance is something. That section is here to play and means business. I understand why 3rd may want a trigger, but it always looks wrong, heavy.

When I see larger horns on 1-3, right or wrong, it affects what I think I am hearing. Woof.

[tbdana]

Three differences in two acceptable configurations.

IMG_4041.jpeg

IMG_4042.jpeg

[Posaunus]

Three differences in two acceptable configurations.

But Dana - just yesterday you wrote:

I don't like .547 bore horns in big bands. But I see a great many community players using them, claiming it gives a "bigger sound." I don't think that's correct. They give a less focused, woofier sound that doesn't mesh well in a big band, imho. And they are generally less nimble ...

And yet there you are, seemingly enjoying meshing with those "woofy" sounds in your big band!

As others have said, bring the right tool for the job, and respect the composers' / arrangers' intentions!

[tbdana]

Three differences in two acceptable configurations.

But Dana - just yesterday you wrote:

I don't like .547 bore horns in big bands. But I see a great many community players using them, claiming it gives a "bigger sound." I don't think that's correct. They give a less focused, woofier sound that doesn't mesh well in a big band, imho. And they are generally less nimble ...

And yet there you are, seemingly enjoying meshing with those "woofy" sounds in your big band!

As others have said, bring the right tool for the job, and respect the composers' / arrangers' intentions!

LOL! Two things: the third player played a large bore horn on 1/2 of one tune because of a written low C, and someone snapped a picture.

But the worst offender of all, which you didn't even notice, is that the 2nd player is playing a valve trombone in one of the photos! Oh, my!

[Posaunus]

LOL! Two things: the third player played a large bore horn on 1/2 of one tune because of a written low C, and someone snapped a picture.

But the worst offender of all, which you didn't even notice, is that the 2nd player is playing a valve trombone in one of the photos! Oh, my!

Oh I definitely noticed the valve trombone. I was wondering why, but assumed that it was the arranger's intention.

I guess I don't get switching trombones in mid-tune just to play a low C. The arranger probably expected a large-bore F-attachment for that chart. That's what I use when I encounter such arrangements.

Did you find the situation uncomfortable / offensive / awful / unmusical?

[tbdana]

Oh I definitely noticed the valve trombone. I was wondering why, but assumed that it was the arranger's intention.

I guess I don't get switching trombones in mid-tune just to play a low C. The arranger probably expected a large-bore F-attachment for that chart. That's what I use when I encounter such arrangements.

Did you find the situation uncomfortable / offensive / awful / unmusical?

The composer/arranger was the piano player, who didn't really know how to write for trombones. (He does now.) He had me up on high D's, Eb's and F's all frickin' night long. And this wasn't a big band, it was four trombones and a rhythm section, so we were all over the ranges.

We had discussed having the 3rd player lay out that section and just having the bass trombone player play it, but he decided to switch to his big horn just for that section...and then switch back for his solo 32 bars later. Since there's no big band and it's just the four of us, we have wide latitude to play whatever we want, and it's notable that all three tenor players play predominantly small bore horns.

I didn't find it uncomfortable or anything at all. It was his choice out of multiple options we gave him.

As for the valve trombone, he chose to play it on a couple fast tunes (such as this one) where he had solos, and I assume he felt it would be easier or he'd be able to play more of what he wanted to play on valve trombone than on slide. Or maybe he was just trying to keep up with me! (Not likely. He's a monster player.) And, as he even announced to the audience after the tune, he was "cheating" by playing it.

[Fidbone]

Why has the large bore become seemingly more popular in today’s various settings?
Is it trend? Ease of playing? Better sounding?

I'd say the transition to larger and larger instruments has to to with a concurrence of increased venue sizes, increased potential for louder dynamics in the modern instruments, and an accomodation of both players and audiences of a generally noisier over all environment.

I mean, it's not very profitable to do a symphonic concert with, like, 80 musicians in a venue that accomodates 100 in the audience. The techniques and materials for building louder instruments have taken significant leaps from, like, the 30's, and the techniques for playing them have also, but maybe not equally much, developed. All the while when the financial conditions for setting up and pursuing professional orchestras have made it necessary to play for larger and larger audiences, and the general environment, both outside and indoors, urban and rural, personal and public, has gotten much more noisy and sound polluted.



[Dreaming away..... ]

So you don’t think that Kenton, Basie, Miller or Dorsey or even Lincoln Centre Jazz Orchestra played in large halls with large audiences and noisy environments outdoors and indoors then?
Besides smaller bored instruments do cut through the mustard better

[Digidog]

So you don’t think that Kenton, Basie, Miller or Dorsey or even Lincoln Centre Jazz Orchestra played in large halls with large audiences and noisy environments outdoors and indoors then?
Besides smaller bored instruments do cut through the mustard better

There is research showing that people of today generally speak louder and faster than only fifty years ago, and I have seen some half official figures of symphonic orchestras playing a number of db louder than in the fifties. The over all environment both in the cities and at the countryside, is significantly more sound polluted than only some fifty years ago. With the advent of the portable music player and easily worn, smaller headphones, physicians - at least here in Sweden - can see that the the detoriation of hearing statistically sets in at earlier ages than before, not by too much yet but there are fears of increasing numbers of hearing impairment to show in the population.

Of course there were loud phenomenons before, too, but there are significant differences in both amplification and production of sounds today; where, for how long, and by what means. Though bands and orchestras were loud before, it is a different situation today. Modern instruments and amplifiers are more effective and more easily accessible and widely distributed, and combined with many other factors - like more over all traffic everywhere, more electric appliances and machines, more concentration of people to places where sound is not naturally dampened, and easy access to means for a person to produce sound close to them, like loudspeakers (headphones) and noisy tools (computer games, or streamed movies in a cellphone) - we live in a noisier world than ever before.

Studies have also shown that there is a huge difference in how we react to the vague swoosh of distant automobile traffic and sea waves. If the different noises are at the same volume they sound very similar, but whereas traffic noise has a stressful impact on us, wave noise has not. With that I mean that though there have been loud phenomenons since forever before, we have more noise around us today that by its quality and characteristics affects us negatively, and one aspect of that is that we use loud to cut through loud and the ensuing effects of loud (impaired hearing or sound drowning out), to convey what needs to be transfered; like music, conversation or sound signals.

You may think whatever you feel like of it, but this is a fact and it's easily controllable. Look it up, if you don't believe me! I would not be surprised if after looking into it, it were shown that Basie's band of 1938 played softer than the 1960's version, which in turn was softer than the 1990's ghost band - though they all played basically the same repertoire.

[tbdana]

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure the increase in popular horn size has anything to do with a louder society or larger venues.

[Burgerbob]

What else would it be from?

[CalgaryTbone]

I do prefer smaller bore horns in big band, and use a .508 bore Edwards when I play that music. When I was in school, we mostly played .547 horns in the big band (Manhattan School of Music) because that's what we had. There were a few people who were working at some professional gigs like club dates, recordings, etc. and they had small bore horns that they used for that.

The best sound I ever heard with .547 horns in a big band was the Woody Herman band when Jim Pugh joined. I was a high school student then, and Jim landed the lead chair just out of Eastman, and when the other 2 chairs opened up, they hired 2 of his classmates - the section was 2 88H's, and a 62H. I still have the old records from that time, and I was really inspired because that was the horn that I played. Jim sounded great - I heard them live at a jazz festival that my high school big band was at.

Flash forward to my first year at MSM, and I went to hear that band at a NYC club. Jim was now on a King 3B. We chatted at the break (he was really nice and friendly). He told me that he loved his 88H, but to get the right sound on it in that setting required being 100% in shape, and "pushing" the horn to make it get bright enough. Being on the road meant that there wasn't a lot of time for practicing beyond the actual gigs (bus travel, etc.) and the 3B was just a more natural fit.

That's what I find too - you can get close to a small bore sound out of some .547 horns, but you're fighting the tendencies of the instrument. It's hard work, and the smaller horn just works better. I like to use my .508 on a lot of orchestra pops too, but one thing that gets in the way of that is that a lot of the arrangements are bad, and really way too low. Unfortunately, a lot of "arrangers" these days are just someone that bought Finale.

Jim Scott

[jacobgarchik]

The Vanguard Jazz Orchestra for a while had two bass trombones, and for a very long time had a guy playing lead on a trigger horn...
In Mike Formanek's big band Jeff nelson doubled on contrabass trombone.
In the WDR band Mattias Cederberg doubles on Cimbasso.
I have doubled 3rd trombone with euphonium both in Darcy's band and John Hollenbeck's.
These are all pretty well known bands, well within the mainstream, at least in my mind!
so to make these types of pronouncements about how it has to be one way or another, i think, is not very accurate in reflecting current practice.
Not to mention that the bands we think of as classic, like Duke's and Basie's, also had a fair amount of instrumental variety, whether it was a valve trombone in a section, or three tenors with no bass, or 2 tenors and a trigger tenor, before the advent of 3 tenors and bass.