Are bass bone players doing it all wrong?

[LIBrassCo]

A thought occured to me yesterday. I was playing on a prototype horn I recently built (which through sheer happenstance plays better than it has any right to, and will never leave my hands), and just paying carfeful attention to my sound on it. Nice and deep, full, beautiful rich voice, sounds fantastic on bass rep. I've been on the horn for about 10 days exclusively, so that i could fully immerse myself into playing it as well as possible. Later on, someone else tried out this exact horn, who is a fantastic bass player, and to my dismay, their sound was entirely different. To oversimplify it, sounded like a run of the mill tenor. Now for the kicker. It's a Baritone trombone, with an 8" bell no less.

Dont get me wrong, put it next to a bass with a 10.5" bell with a dual bore slide and it will sound very different, I am not saying it sounded the same, but somewhere along the way i subconsciously learned how to manipule the horn into giving me the sound I prefer to generate from a trombone. To clarify, i know no two players sound exactly the same on the same gear, but, generally there is a ball park that all players are in if they play using the same horn. This was like being in a different country! However, the actual horn has nothing to do with my lightbulb moment.

This got me thinking to the bass trombone design of yesteryear, and the progression henceforth. These old G basses, with a tiny bell and small bore, that by todays standards are a peashooter at best, what did the players of their era actually sound like on them? I know if i pick one up it sure doesnt sound like a bass in my hands, but what about when it was used in its day? Could it be that in the modern age of the bass trombone, we have become so dependent in our equipment to bestow upon us the sound we desire, we have lost the ability to make that sound for ourself? Or the importance of learning how to?

Jusy something i found interesting...

[Burgerbob]

It sounds to me like the player isn't used to playing your baritone trombone.

[harrisonreed]

To answer the topic: "yes".

Next slide!

[trombonedemon]

What Burger Bob said, but the said "fantastic" trombone may not have a baritone sound in mind, we usually have a clear sound for alto, tenor, and bass in mind. I've seen your videos and you sound like a baritone voice.

To be fair, I'm sure the same bass bone player would have a tough time switching to those odd specific valve instruments that are call for in some orchestrations.

Your horn sounds very pure by the way, I'm in no way brown nosing.

In my 20 some odd year experience on the trombone, its usually the musician, not the instrument. My 2 cents, Demon.

[LIBrassCo]

Let me rephrase. The story i start out with was just to explain how i came to the questions i did. It could have just as easily happened on a tenor, or a bass, it just got me thinking, was all.

[Burgerbob]

Well, you could say the same about the average tenor player picking up a bass trombone.

[sirisobhakya]

I don’t understand the sentence “we have lost our ability to make that sound for ourself”. One needs an appropriate equipment to sound like he/she should. That is a fact. One cannot sound like a bass trombone on only mouthpiece, or a trumpet. It is the entire system, player and horn, that matters. Therefore, one chooses the equipment that matches him/her the best.

So, like many have said before me, it may be just because the horn is not a match for the player. It may even be because he/she is not familiar with your horn’s blow in contrary to 10-days straight experience of you. The mouthpiece may also be a mismatch to the horn if he/she used his/her own mouthpiece.

Lastly, it may just be because you are listening to yourself from behind the bell in contrary to listening to the player in front of the bell. Have you tried recording and listening side-by-side?

Sound concept changes all the time. I am sure that the bass trombone of the past centuries were tailored to the then-current sound concept, and the players from that era would have depended on their horns to produce a good sound as well. Would the player from the past sounds good if you hand him the modern bass trombone? Without accustomization for at least an hour, I am willing to bet he would not.

[sirisobhakya]

I can see another point which may be your main intention after all.

One needs adjustment switching between different equipment, even different mouthpieces on the same horn that matches the player perfectly in separate occasions, not to mention a totally different instrument. Yes, some may be quicker to adjust or less sensitive to change than another, but that does not mean the slower or more sensitive ones “lost the ability to make a good sound by themselves”. Changing equipment (between the same kind of instrument) and playing it well on the fly is not mandatory, at least in an average orchestra.

[hyperbolica]

I believe there is always to some degree, positive or negative, some sort of synergy between each player and a horn. If you and your horn work together to make a great sound, that's great. If you and a particular horn are working at cross-purposes, then you're going to feel like it's fighting you (because it is). I sound pretty good on an 88h, but I can't make an Olds Super or a big Edwards bass sound very good - or separate from sound, maybe it just doesn't feel good to me. Maybe if I practiced each of a couple of months/years I could manage it.

And further, it's hard to tell after a year of practice if you really sound better on a particular horn, of if you've just become accustomed to the sound, and think you sound better. Are you practicing your skills or are you pounding your ear into submission? You need an objective reference, which is hard to come across.

So if you have a contralto trombone in Db, there's really no point in talking about it. You've got to let the sound do the communication for you. If there is synergy between you and the horn, that's something you can't transfer to someone else.

Articulation and other style points all kind of add up. I think in part the way a horn makes you feel contributes to how you sound on it, or at least how you think you sound on it. Some horns facilitate hard attacks, some facilitate smooth legato playing. We have so many hardware choices to complement different playing styles and personal preferences. I've never made friends with a small bore Olds, but I love large bore Olds. Just a thing.

In answer to your question, some bass bone players are undoubtedly doing something wrong, but I doubt all of them are doing everything wrong. I know some of them get most of it right. I can say that as a bass bone player, I'm still struggling to define the questions, much less give reasonable answers. I definitely don't think there is just one answer when it comes to any instrument. There are many different purposes for bass bone, and what's right for one purpose is wrong for another.

[LIBrassCo]

I must not be conveying the message well. The oversimplified question is, do modern horns tailor our sound more than those of yesteryear? And if yes, what does that mean for the skill a player once had to have to generate the sound they desired without all the options and/or specialized horns that exist today?

Does that make more sense?

[Burgerbob]

Well, we have those options in abundance, so...

[sirisobhakya]

I still stand by my word: I believe that the trombone of the past centuries were tailored to the then-current sound concept, and the players from that era would have depended on their horns to produce a "good sound" that matches their sound concept as well. One doesn't have to look far back. Look at Bach's advertisement from the early 20th century saying all things about "Bach" sound. I can say with confidence that back then in 17-18th century there were similar advertisement also.

[DougHulme]

For what its worth... Maisie Ringham/Wiggins was one of my teachers and a very long standing family friend. She passed last year but over this side of the pond she was very well known and was principal trombone of the Halle Orchestra etc etc. The point being I have some old 78 rpm records of her playing. These were on what we now call 'pea shooter' trombones, small bore small bell. She played a Salvation Army 'Triumphonic' trombone on those recordings, long before she got her Olds Recording and even longer before she got her first Conn 88 which she spent the rest of her life playing. When you listen to those old recordings she still had a large fat sound, it didnt change an aweful lot as she transitioned to the modern and much larger equipment. She still projected the sound she had in her head no matter what equipment she had in her hand. She would tell you that the larger more modern instruments made it easier for her to achieve it, it didnt alter dramatically what she sounded like (it did a little bit of course). It seems to me its the sound you have in your head before you play a note thats more important than the equipment you have in your hand... Doug

[Doug Elliott]

"Yesteryear" was not all that long ago... from my perspective. When I was in school your choices in large bore were pretty much just stock Bach 42B and Conn 88H. Sound concept changes, but not that much. You just made it work.

[LIBrassCo]

For what its worth... Maisie Ringham/Wiggins was one of my teachers and a very long standing family friend. She passed last year but over this side of the pond she was very well known and was principal trombone of the Halle Orchestra etc etc. The point being I have some old 78 rpm records of her playing. These were on what we now call 'pea shooter' trombones, small bore small bell. She played a Salvation Army 'Triumphonic' trombone on those recordings, long before she got her Olds Recording and even longer before she got her first Conn 88 which she spent the rest of her life playing. When you listen to those old recordings she still had a large fat sound, it didnt change an aweful lot as she transitioned to the modern and much larger equipment. She still projected the sound she had in her head no matter what equipment she had in her hand. She would tell you that the larger more modern instruments made it easier for her to achieve it, it didnt alter dramatically what she sounded like (it did a little bit of course). It seems to me its the sound you have in your head before you play a note thats more important than the equipment you have in your hand... Doug

I was kind of thinking about horns over 100 years old for my comparison, but this is getting at what I'm talking about. My question in this case is could you take someone from todays age, possibly even playing an 88h, and but them on a old pea shooter, and could they produce the same sound?

The point you make about new gear making it easier is kind of what i am saying. I use bass trombones as an example, because the old G basses compared to a modern bass trombone is really night and day.

[LIBrassCo]

"Yesteryear" was not all that long ago... from my perspective. When I was in school your choices in large bore were pretty much just stock Bach 42B and Conn 88H. Sound concept changes, but not that much. You just made it work.

Lol, Doug i mean 100+ years ago. In a nutshell, putting a player from that period on a modern horn, they would still be able to produce a full sound (I am assuming, no way to test this), but take today's bass player, and replace their horn with an old boosey G bass, with a period mouthpiece, and ask them to produce the same sound, could they do it?

[sirisobhakya]

"Yesteryear" was not all that long ago... from my perspective. When I was in school your choices in large bore were pretty much just stock Bach 42B and Conn 88H. Sound concept changes, but not that much. You just made it work.

Lol, Doug i mean 100+ years ago. In a nutshell, putting a player from that period on a modern horn, they would still be able to produce a full sound (I am assuming, no way to test this), but take today's bass player, and replace their horn with an old boosey G bass, with a period mouthpiece, and ask them to produce the same sound, could they do it?

May I ask why do you think a player from the past would still be able to produce a full sound?

Interesting. I just read here https://bandestration.com/2015/10/04/co ... -trombone/ that in early 19th century people were worrying that their lung was no match for the contrabass trombone, while many people are doing it regularly now.

[blast]

Of course you (anyone) cannot make the same sound on a G peashooter. The G is a very different instrument from the modern bass trombone.... bore size, overall length and mouthpiece traditionally used.
The last bit.... the mouthpiece.... has a very big effect indeed though. The typical American bass trombone is a development of the German Bb/F trombone, not the G bass... but even a G bass played with a shaved-shank Back 1 1/2G can sound quite modern at modest dynamic levels. I have several G basses. Played with the correct period mouthpiece the G has a character all of it's own.
I also have German bass trombones dating back to the mid 19th century. The oldest is a fairly large bore similar to modern symphony trombones with a 9" bell flare. That instrument can take a modern large shank mouthpiece and when played with a Bach 1 1/2G, sounds pretty modern, much like a Conn 70H... but plug in a period mouthpiece (a lot smaller, but also a very different shape) and it is quite a different sound.
My 1925 Conn Fuchs is the parent of modern basses and again, played with the 1 1/2G it is a fine modern bass. Played with a Conn Kenfield it has a very different period charm.
All this time I am talking about using a Bach 1 1/2G, which was the biggest of available bass mouthpieces post WW2 (just think about that for a minute). There is now a general use of mouthpieces far larger than the 1 1/2G, so much so that the 1 1/2G is considered a beginner bass mouthpiece.
With this considerable increase in size comes a change in sound.... fact. This is where the modern bass sound is at the moment. People now expect to be able to buy a low register in a box.
I personally think that mouthpieces should suit (tonally and acoustically) the instrument with which they are used first and foremost and the player second. I have played bass in top level orchestras with both 1 1/2G sizes and mouthpieces bigger than the Schilke 60.... you can make any work... sort of..but I prefer the sound of the 1 1/2G and the ability to play in tune in the upper register that a more acoustically matched mouthpiece gives.
Are many people doing it 'all wrong' ? No... there is no right and wrong with tone, or timbre, but many people are doing it very differently today.

Chris

[sirisobhakya]

OK, I am starting to get your hypothesis. “Because in the past trombone is hard to play, the trombonists back then have to be better and can better manipulate the sound to be “good” than the modern trombonists today with easy-to-play horns and myriad choices”.

Whether the “choices” are limited back then or not is already a matter of debate.

But to the point of “one who uses a hard-to-play equipment must be better than one who uses an easy-to-play equipment”, think of a recording software. You can record yourself using Windows Sound Recorder, mix it using Windows Movie Maker and, if you try hard enough, the result may be as good as another one using Soundforge and Vegas. But the potential “best” of work accomplished with the advanced softwares is always better than “best” with basic software. And that does not means the one using advanced softwares cannot use the basic ones.

We pick because there are things for us to pick, and we use that picked equipment to push the “best” to be even more best, and definitely more varied. I would not call that “spoiled”.

[LIBrassCo]

We're getting closer, im going to put one more analogy out there. Can we equate this to golf for a second? Think vintage vs modern clubs, and the required skill of the player. Now change golf club to trombone.

[blast]

OK, I am starting to get your hypothesis. “Because in the past trombone is hard to play, the trombonists back then have to be better and can better manipulate the sound to be “good” than the modern trombonists today with easy-to-play horns and myriad choices”.

Whether the “choices” are limited back then or not is already a matter of debate.

But to the point of “one who uses a hard-to-play equipment must be better than one who uses an easy-to-play equipment”, think of a recording software. You can record yourself using Windows Sound Recorder, mix it using Windows Movie Maker and, if you try hard enough, the result may be as good as another one using Soundforge and Vegas. But the potential “best” of work accomplished with the advanced softwares is always better than “best” with basic software. And that does not means the one using advanced softwares cannot use the basic ones.

We pick because there are things for us to pick, and we use that picked equipment to push the “best” to be even more best, and definitely more varied. I would not call that “spoiled”.

Was not primarily thinking of ease of playing, so I hope that you didn't get that from me. Buy a low register in box and you have to work at the upper register far, far more.

Chris

[sirisobhakya]

OK, I am starting to get your hypothesis. “Because in the past trombone is hard to play, the trombonists back then have to be better and can better manipulate the sound to be “good” than the modern trombonists today with easy-to-play horns and myriad choices”.

Whether the “choices” are limited back then or not is already a matter of debate.

But to the point of “one who uses a hard-to-play equipment must be better than one who uses an easy-to-play equipment”, think of a recording software. You can record yourself using Windows Sound Recorder, mix it using Windows Movie Maker and, if you try hard enough, the result may be as good as another one using Soundforge and Vegas. But the potential “best” of work accomplished with the advanced softwares is always better than “best” with basic software. And that does not means the one using advanced softwares cannot use the basic ones.

We pick because there are things for us to pick, and we use that picked equipment to push the “best” to be even more best, and definitely more varied. I would not call that “spoiled”.

Was not primarily thinking of ease of playing, so I hope that you didn't get that from me. Buy a low register in box and you have to work at the upper register far, far more.

Chris

Sorry for being unclear. With “you” I mean the OP.

[VJOFan]

Personally, I change my sound all the time. I've just one horn so I make necessary changes depending on the ensemble or repertoire.

Most of the changes are not totally conscious. It's more like hearing a colour and inhabiting what that colour feels like to play.

It' may be a little bit like acting: I'm a lead player for Basie's band; I'm playing the solo in Mahler 3 with Mahler conducting...

[elmsandr]

We're getting closer, im going to put one more analogy out there. Can we equate this to golf for a second? Think vintage vs modern clubs, and the required skill of the player. Now change golf club to trombone.

Sure, but golf is a troubled analogy as it has a well defined "better", i.e. a lower total stroke score. For example, when I was a teenager, I used to play a lot with my Grandfather. He used an ancient set of Ben Hogans. I had an early Big Bertha. He could not hit a ball farther than 150 yards to save his life, I was routinely hitting drives ~300 yards. He still beat me, as every one of his shots was perfectly straight and right where he wanted it. I was, uh, learning which holes on his course I could shoot from adjacent fairways.

Does that mean his clubs were better? Nah. Does that mean that I was swinging them wrong? Nah. Does that mean that he had practiced a lot more than I did? Yup. If he had been starting over, which tools would he have chosen? The ones that were easier to hit. If I had tried hitting his clubs, not only would I have had more distance to make up, I probably would have been just as far off target, if not more.

Definitely some good sounds available on vintage, difficult to play equipment. Heck, I kinda even like those horns as I think there is some more malleability in the sound there that I find interesting and fun. But, nah, tis just different and either way the hours need to be put in to make the sounds we want. Instruments are just evolving a bit to give folks the sounds we want a little easier. I think we would see even more evolution and design changes if we could agree on what is "better."

Cheers,
Andy

[sf105]

@blast. Is there anything currently available that would be close to the Kenfield? Curious to try.

[blast]

@blast. Is there anything currently available that would be close to the Kenfield? Curious to try.

Nothing in common usage in the UK or US. It is not just size but shape . The Kenfield is similar to traditional German mouthpieces still made in the old East Germany. Schmidt comes to mind.

Chris