In a rut ???

[FOSSIL]

Okay, in another thread, surprise was voiced at the British trombone scene being quite static in it's use of the same sort of equipment as it used 50 or 60 years ago....
Thinking about this, and I am talking orchestras here, the symphony and opera music we play is largely unchanged from 50 years ago or even 100 years ago so why has equipment changed so much in the last 40 years ? I am not wanting another fight over perceived quality improvements...why are instruments and particularly mouthpieces getting so much bigger when the music we play has not changed ?

Chris

[EdwardSolomon]

In professional settings, I'm not certain much has changed, Chris, at least in the UK. Sure, there are some who swear by modular instruments, but mouthpiece sizes for pros have remained pretty constant. Tenors typically don't go larger than a 5G and basses are often to be seen at the 2G mark. The reason: it feels less like hard work and it's easier to get through a gruelling schedule of rehearsing and performing when your face doesn't hurt.

[WGWTR180]

Following with popcorn in hand.

[Posaunus]

Thinking about this, and I am talking orchestras here, the symphony and opera music we play is largely unchanged from 50 years ago or even 100 years ago so why has equipment changed so much in the last 40 years ?

Chris

Perhaps the still-hovering aura of the all-powerful Denis Wick? (And Ray Premru?)

[Doug Elliott]

Well Denis's mouthpiece was certainly bigger than a 5G.

I'm not in the orchestral scene, but I think I have seen volume (loudness) increase over the decades, in every genre.
And mainly the expectation of keeping the sound from getting too bright at high volumes, which I think is what has driven the push to larger equipment that is capable of that.

Is that not the case in the UK?

Putting the popcorn on now.

[paulyg]

I do believe volume has quite a bit to do with it. Lots of modern concert halls (Berlin, San Francisco, Los Angeles) situate the stage almost in the middle of the audience. Some of these halls are also extraordinarily dead. Bigger equipment facilitates louder playing.

As for mouthpieces, I really couldn't tell you. I know that for ME, I can make a whole range of sizes "work," but the trade-offs are really different. I have noticed that my endurance is much better on larger pieces, even if I give up some ease in the upper register. Weston Sprott mentioned during an interview that he had run the entire gamut of rim sizes during his time at the Met, mainly because larger pieces accommodated swollen lips better (operas can be long). FWIW he also mentioned that he eventually went back to a smaller piece (I suspect he was on an Alessi 1 or similar).

Also, off the top of my head, most of the orchestral principals in the US don't use a piece with a larger rim than a 3.5, with an obvious exception. I've seen Kenneth Thompkins offloading a bunch of stuff in the 4-5G range, Toby Oft's pieces are closer to a 5G, and David Rejano plays basically a 5GS with a Clarke rim. Jay Friedman's pieces are always considered large, but I have a copy of his Parke piece- it's really much closer to a 4G (Corp 3G) than a modern 3G, and he was on a smaller piece for much of his career.

Where it gets interesting is in the world of bass trombone. My theory on this below. There are two kinds of conductors- ones who want the bass trombone seen and not heard, and ones who have a shot at directing a world-class orchestra. (Some) world class players use huge mouthpieces because they can put in the time to make them sound small (in a good way). This affords extraordinary flexibility in how to color the sound of an otherwise unwieldy instrument. Amateurs use big mouthpieces for a mix of reasons, not the least of which is that there is more room to hide inside one. In any case, the distribution of options is skewed heavily towards the extremes. Lots of 1.5G sized pieces out there, and lots of Schilke 60 sized pieces- not a lot in between.

In any case, my theory is that physiological diversity combined with few equipment choices created a population of unique sounds. Now that the number of equipment choices have grown in number, people are choosing equipment that is most comfortable for them, AND suits "the sound in their head:" a sound that appears to be more homogenous worldwide.

[FOSSIL]

Well Denis's mouthpiece was certainly bigger than a 5G.

I'm not in the orchestral scene, but I think I have seen volume (loudness) increase over the decades, in every genre.
And mainly the expectation of keeping the sound from getting too bright at high volumes, which I think is what has driven the push to larger equipment that is capable of that.

Is that not the case in the UK?

Putting the popcorn on now.

Some of the orchestras here have employed high volumes for a long time and still do. They have done that on the more traditional equipment so I suppose there is less reason to change. Ed may be right that the stupidly intense schedules that people work to in London...often 3 sessions a day, seven days a week for ages will hold people to moderate equipment choices. I think the major reason that UK bass trombone scene is dominated by Conn 62H models and often Bach 2G mouthpieces is the legacy and continued teaching of the great Bob Hughes. Bob was the gold standard in his playing days and now teaching, he still is a massive influence .

Chris

[ChadA]

Those RSNO recordings with Bob are amazing. What a huge, clear sound. Still my sonic idol on bass trombone.

Here’s a thought: is it possible some of this stems from union contracts in the states? From what I’ve heard, many European orchestras have busier schedules and may give more performances and do more rehearsals in an average week than equivalent orchestras over here. Perhaps you can get away with the big equipment with a week that might consist of 4-5 rehearsals and 2-3 concerts instead of the more packed schedules of many European orchestras. This is, of course, the grossest of generalizations and there are really busy orchestras over here (any opera orchestra), but could it be a factor?

[WGWTR180]

Those RSNO recordings with Bob are amazing. What a huge, clear sound. Still my sonic idol on bass trombone.

Here’s a thought: is it possible some of this stems from union contracts in the states? From what I’ve heard, many European orchestras have busier schedules and may give more performances and do more rehearsals in an average week than equivalent orchestras over here. Perhaps you can get away with the big equipment with a week that might consist of 4-5 rehearsals and 2-3 concerts instead of the more packed schedules of many European orchestras. This is, of course, the grossest of generalizations and there are really busy orchestras over here (any opera orchestra), but could it be a factor?

Well let's maybe put it this way. Instead of making it a negative slant against union contracts possibly fewer services could result in different equipment used. However, speaking for myself, I played huge equipment for years because most others did. I do not now because I like the sound that I now produce with what I play on. Some weeks I have 10-12 services and others less. Equipment, for me wouldn't be a factor.

[ChadA]

I’m a proud union member who has negotiated several CBAs and drafted a side letter to a master agreement two days ago. I’m not against union contracts and wasn’t trying to disparage them. I’ve worked under them for more than 20 years. But they have created a different working environment than what I’ve heard many European orchestras operate under, so I was speculating whether working condition differences might play a part in equipment choices. Perhaps the answer is no.

[Bassbonechandler]

I do believe volume has quite a bit to do with it. Lots of modern concert halls (Berlin, San Francisco, Los Angeles) situate the stage almost in the middle of the audience. Some of these halls are also extraordinarily dead. Bigger equipment facilitates louder playing.

As for mouthpieces, I really couldn't tell you. I know that for ME, I can make a whole range of sizes "work," but the trade-offs are really different. I have noticed that my endurance is much better on larger pieces, even if I give up some ease in the upper register. Weston Sprott mentioned during an interview that he had run the entire gamut of rim sizes during his time at the Met, mainly because larger pieces accommodated swollen lips better (operas can be long). FWIW he also mentioned that he eventually went back to a smaller piece (I suspect he was on an Alessi 1 or similar).

Also, off the top of my head, most of the orchestral principals in the US don't use a piece with a larger rim than a 3.5, with an obvious exception. I've seen Kenneth Thompkins offloading a bunch of stuff in the 4-5G range, Toby Oft's pieces are closer to a 5G, and David Rejano plays basically a 5GS with a Clarke rim. Jay Friedman's pieces are always considered large, but I have a copy of his Parke piece- it's really much closer to a 4G (Corp 3G) than a modern 3G, and he was on a smaller piece for much of his career.

Where it gets interesting is in the world of bass trombone. My theory on this below. There are two kinds of conductors- ones who want the bass trombone seen and not heard, and ones who have a shot at directing a world-class orchestra. (Some) world class players use huge mouthpieces because they can put in the time to make them sound small (in a good way). This affords extraordinary flexibility in how to color the sound of an otherwise unwieldy instrument. Amateurs use big mouthpieces for a mix of reasons, not the least of which is that there is more room to hide inside one. In any case, the distribution of options is skewed heavily towards the extremes. Lots of 1.5G sized pieces out there, and lots of Schilke 60 sized pieces- not a lot in between.

In any case, my theory is that physiological diversity combined with few equipment choices created a population of unique sounds. Now that the number of equipment choices have grown in number, people are choosing equipment that is most comfortable for them, AND suits "the sound in their head:" a sound that appears to be more homogenous worldwide.

Well said.

[Doug Elliott]

Both as a player and mouthpiece maker, I have worked with players in some of the loudest of the military bands and major orchestras in the US, and I hear those players say they have to use large equipment just to be able to produce the volume that is required in some situations.

And I'm sure part of it is keeping up with the section when everybody around you is doing the same.

[BurckhardtS]

I'll let people who have been around longer than I have maybe fill in some blanks here, but I also have noticed that in the last 5 years, the trend seems to be moving towards trying to play efficient and have great clarity, and let the width and mass of the sound come from the equipment. However, it seems that maybe the pedagogy 10 or 20 years ago was to actively try to get as big and huge of a sound as possible. Older folks probably have a better perspective on this, too. The top orchestras have always played this way, but the pedagogy and concept seems to have changed.

E: I also forgot to mention, a lot of the orchestra halls in the U.S. are notoriously dead sounding, are meant to limit the volume to the audience and performers, and are not great acoustical performance situations. I know that in Benaroya Hall in Seattle, the sound is far away to most of the audience that isn't sitting on the orchestra tier, and the sound can be exceedingly directional when you are on stage. In Symphony Center in Chicago, there is a seat in the gallery that picks up the 3rd horn extremely well and nothing else, and it isn't super resonant in there either. This means that often the brass play a lot louder to get good projection and clarity across the orchestra.

[sf105]

Perhaps the UK scene is affected by the fact that there isn't a decent large hall in London: the Festival Hall is a barn, the Barbican is a conference centre with pretensions, and the Albert Hall houses Zeppelins.

Other cities are much better supplied.

[Vegasbound]

Perhaps the UK scene is affected by the fact that there isn't a decent large hall in London: the Festival Hall is a barn, the Barbican is a conference centre with pretensions, and the Albert Hall houses Zeppelins.

Other cities are much better supplied.

There is a new concert hall scheduled to be built in the city of London on the site currently occupied by the museum of London as part of the cultural mile and was part of the deal bringing Sir Simon Rattle to the LSO

[Tbarh]

Just minutes before Reading this thread i listened to Bob Hughes with the Philharmonia, Sinopoli doing Tchaikovsky 5th.(1992),and with the LSO, Saint Saens organ Symphony from 96 with Chung on YouTube .Oh my goodness!! I dont necessary buy the bigger is louder thing... Friedman also said that the reason he plays big equipment is not to get louder.. My Bass is a Holton E185 with a Symington 2...I never expect to get into a situation where it is not loud enough..
An alternative reason for British orchestras using smaller bass trombone gear (tenor gear in Britain seams on par with America, sizewise) is the frequent use of the Besson EEb tuba.. The big US 6/4size CC tubas maybe needs a more "bulky" bass sound to bridge the gap... Just a theory of mine..

[WGWTR180]

I’m a proud union member who has negotiated several CBAs and drafted a side letter to a master agreement two days ago. I’m not against union contracts and wasn’t trying to disparage them. I’ve worked under them for more than 20 years. But they have created a different working environment than what I’ve heard many European orchestras operate under, so I was speculating whether working condition differences might play a part in equipment choices. Perhaps the answer is no.

[FOSSIL]

The London orchestras (not opera or BBC) are self governing member owned co operatives where the players are paid for the actual sessions played. There is therefore a huge pressure to secure the maximum number of sessions in a week....and that pressure comes from the players themselves. Most other UK orchestras are salaried positions that work a regulated schedule.

Chris

[EdwardSolomon]

Some of the orchestras here have employed high volumes for a long time and still do. They have done that on the more traditional equipment so I suppose there is less reason to change. Ed may be right that the stupidly intense schedules that people work to in London...often 3 sessions a day, seven days a week for ages will hold people to moderate equipment choices. I think the major reason that UK bass trombone scene is dominated by Conn 62H models and often Bach 2G mouthpieces is the legacy and continued teaching of the great Bob Hughes. Bob was the gold standard in his playing days and now teaching, he still is a massive influence .

Chris

You make a very valid point here, Chris. Bob's still a huge influence in London through his teaching at the RAM and similarly, Christian Jones has a following up North. He, too, puts his students on a 2G and sorts out the mechanics of an efficient embouchure and there's much to be said about the influence not only of the professional classical orchestral scene, particularly in London, but also of the session orchestras and the West End shows. It seems that performance and pedagogy feed off each other, for good reason, and these in combination drive sensible equipment choices as tools for the jobbing musician, especially in this day and age, when having to double on multiple instruments, as well as multiple performance styles, matters in order to put bread on the table. (Think of someone like Andy Wood, for example, who also plays a 62H.)

[whitbey]

While classical music has not changed, the popular music has changed. Popular music has become louder and more electronic. I think Forte has been redefined. I also think that small horns cut and big horns do big sound. Both are capable of loud, but big horns give classical music a better sound at the bigger volumes that give classical audiences the larger sound they have heard with popular music.

[brtnats]

With all the respect and love in the world, isn’t part of this just “being British?” Follow me before you throw tomatoes.

The British, and before them the English, have an incredibly long musical history of being contrary. They way they experimented with harmony in the Middle Ages was contrary. Their polyphony in the Renaissance was contrary. Their most famous composers in the 17th century were known to be contrarians when they manipulated continental music. And the trend continues forward into the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. I can’t name a single well-known British composer who doesn’t show what scholars always seem to call the British “wry humor.”

For God’s sake, look how long they hung on to the G bass trombone! You had to pry that thing out of their hands and then articles were written wistfully remembering the “English Rose.” Read Wick’s Trombone Technique; he goes on for hundreds of pages about the conservatively British way of doing things, and he was the guy who was changing them. Look how long the brass band culture hung on to tiny-bored, tiny-belled tenor trombones. Look at the embargo against non-British instruments after WWII. Heck, look at the fact that brass band charts still score for Eb bass, because the British found them integral to the band sound (America’s 19th century bands dropped them).

Musically, the British do things their way, and the insular culture perpetuates that way of doing things. They don’t change because they largely don’t see any necessity to change.

[FeelMyRath]

Surely this all comes down to the idea of sound concept, and picking the instrument that makes it easiest to make the sound that you are looking for. Personally, I just don't like the sound of a section of Bach 42s or Edwards, it just doesn't have enough edge or what some might describe as brightness. Too dull or woolly sounding for my tastes. An 88H or 88H-style instrument just sounds "right" around these parts. More direct, more tromboney. That isn't to say that a Bach 42 is inferior to an 88H, just different in sound.

[JonTheCadet]

Just my 2 cents.

Last time I was at a concert with the Philharmonia Orchestra performing Mahler 2. They had 3 tenors and 1 bass and all the tenors were 88Hs. The bass was a Shires with trubores and a red bell.

I was there 10 minutes before the concert started and the only part Fulcher was practicing before the concert started was the trombone solo at figure 5, last movement. I think it's more about where the trombonists decide to focus within a piece. He nailed that solo.

The trombone chorale at figure 10 also sounded fabulous although the conductor pulled some weird rubato which I didn't like too much. I also didn't expect their volume at figure 25 - it was soaringly loud. I bought one of the cheapest seats and I can still hear that high C nearly drowning the whole orchestra. It's the sort of volume which you'd expect from CSO, but louder.

They can play like American orchestras, and certainly they are capable of playing like them. They just choose not to (I guess).

[Posaunus]

They can play like American orchestras, and certainly they are capable of playing like them. They just choose not to (I guess).

Vive la différence! Vive la même chose!

[bellend]

OK....... My Two Cents Worth.

Instrument makers just like say, automobile makers, need to keep selling their products in order to make money which don't forget is actually what they are in business to do.
So, just like the car makers they need to keep designing new and ' improved' models to tempt us, the great unwashed to part with our hard earned cash.
The problem is there are only a limited number of things you can do to a trombone, so what to do???
Ooh I know!!!, lets make it larger and heavier !!! ......Cause bigger is always better right??

Well no...... not really in this case it's just a con ( no pun intended )

People seem to have lost sight of the fact that what will carry the furthest is a 'centered' sound with plenty of overtones and yes...... even a touch of brightness
This is something the majority of amateur players ( and let's be honest, that's the market place) are completely incapable of doing on the Bazookas that are now passed off as Orchestral instruments in some quarters.

These same amateur players often make the common mistake of hearing player X or Y in a concert hall and thinking what they are hearing at their end in the cheap seats would sound just the same on stage.
In my experience from helping the design process of a range of trombones with seasoned pro's it seldom is. The close up sound is nearly always a lot more focused/ brighter and the articulation harder as it need to be to make it sound well at distance. Combine this misconception with the fact that nowadays everyone thinks they're a trombone designer and can put together the biggest , heaviest sounding instruments because don't forget ...... Big is better and you arrive at where we are today with a plethora of DULL LIFELESS and worst of all BORING sounding instruments.

As a good friend has stated many times, and he's correct! "it's very possible to darken the sound of a brighter horn, but impossible to brighten the sound of a dull one".
Surely at the end of the day we're all trying to make music here? which consists of a myriad of sounds and timbres that are all but impossible to produce on instruments that sounds like a one dimensional fog horn.

Whilst accepting that physically some people need to play on larger sizes I think the situation is the same for mouthpieces. There are a vast numbers of people who are playing things that are far too large and that they can't really handle just because some player or other plays one.
There is a case to be made for bass trombone in that sizes have increased in order to easier facilitate the execution of modern writing for the instrument i.e. very low and fast.
But even here there seems almost to be a sort of Macho element to it? in being able ( or more often not) to play on something the size of a toilet bowl. Whilst working in the aforementioned trombone development I was asked to make an 11" very heavy gauge bell for a bass trombone and when the customer ( who shall remain nameless) came to pick it up he plugged in a Wick 3 tuba mouthpiece I'll leave it to your imagination as to what that sounded like.

I predict that in a few years things will start to swing back towards more traditional sized and weighted instruments as the manufacturers spurred on by the bean counters try to reinvent the wheel ..... again.

Right.... I'll get me coat now then.........

Keep Safe

BellEnd

[EdwardSolomon]

With all the respect and love in the world, isn’t part of this just “being British?” Follow me before you throw tomatoes.

I followed you, but it turns out you're being rather economical with the truth. There is rather more to it than you let on.

For God’s sake, look how long they hung on to the G bass trombone! You had to pry that thing out of their hands and then articles were written wistfully remembering the “English Rose.”

The G bass trombone was in use only for about 150 years, from circa 1820 to circa 1970, and then, too, it fell out of use rapidly in professional orchestras after 1951, when the New York Philharmonic Orchestra performed at the Festival of Britain and made such a lasting impression with the larger bore orchestral trombones they were using. The G bass trombone was ditched very quickly by orchestral trombonists in the 1950s.

I reproduce below an extract from Gavin Dixon's Farewell to the Kidshifter, which documents the demise of the G bass trombone in Britain.

A visit by the New York Philharmonic to the Edinburgh Festival in 1951 proved to be a decisive factor in the uptake of large bore trombones in the UK.8 The players were Gordon Pulis, Lewis Van Haney and Allen Ostrander (on bass trombone) and the instruments were by Conn. The range of dynamics and roundness of tone offered by these instruments was clearly superior to those of the British-made narrower bore trombones.

Edinburgh also saw the first UK player to take up the Bb bass trombone in a professional orchestra. At the Scottish National Orchestra, it was decided that Jimmy Miller, a straight G player who had recently joined from the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra, was not up to the job. The second trombone player, Percy Cook, agreed to move to the bass trombone chair, but only on the condition that a Bb/F instrument could be found. One was duly sought, and in 1951 he became the orchestra’s bass trombonist, playing a German Piering instrument. By 1957, the London Symphony Orchestra was also using a German Bb/F bass trombone. The player, Tony Thorpe, had acquired the instrument, a Fischer model in poor condition, and had cautiously added a small handle to the outer slide stay to give the appearance of a G trombone in case conductors objected.

But by the mid 1950s, it was the American instruments that were most sought after, and when the Bb/F became the standard orchestral bass trombone in the UK, the American models most commonly used were the King 5B, the Conn 70H and the Reynolds Contempora. However, a trade embargo had been imposed on instruments in 1938, barring the import of American models into the UK. In 1955, the Philharmonia toured the United States and while there the trombone section bought a set of Conn instruments. The tenor trombone players, Alfred Flaszynsky and Arthur Wilson managed to return to the UK with their purchases, but Fred Mansfield had his bass confiscated by customs as soon as they landed in London.

Not all players welcomed the prospect of imported American instruments. Godfrey Kneller, then bass trombonist with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, heard at a London branch meeting of the Musician’s Union in 1954 that: ‘we were about to be invaded by a boat-load of B flat and F "bass" trombones from America’. This prompted him to write an article for the MU journal ‘The Musician’ in defence of the G trombone, describing it variously as ‘the English Rose’ and ‘the King of the orchestra’, and relating approval of the instrument from various British and foreign conductors including Eugene Goossens, Ernest Ansermet and Eduard van Beinum, the latter having apparently insisted that the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra adopt the instrument on the strength of his UK conducting experiences.

Kneller’s fears proved well founded. The repeal of the trade embargo in 1958 saw almost every professional bass trombone player in the country adopt the American Bb/F bass trombone within about five years. In some orchestras, the change came about through the incumbent player switching to the new instrument, for example Freddie Mansfield finally acquired an American bass trombone through legitimate means around 1958, which he used in the Philharmonia from then on, Frank Mathison moved to a Reynolds Contempora in 1960, when Denis Wick changed the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra over to wide-bore instruments, and Tom Wriggley acquired a Bb bass trombone through Barretts of Manchester to play in the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, telling everybody how happy hewas to see the back of the G trombone’s ‘rattling handle’. In other orchestras, the change was the result of a new player taking up the position, such as Tony Thorpe replacing Geoffrey Lindon at the London Symphony Orchestra in 1957 (and soon after trading his decrepit Fischer trombone with a two-valve Reynolds), Harry Spain replacing Godfrey Kneller at the Royal Philharmonic also in 1957, and John Pritchard replacing Bill Coleman at the London Philharmonic in 1962. Gerhard MacElhone’s transition from G player in the London Philharmonic to Bb player at Covent Garden was via the Sinfonia of London, an orchestra set up to record film soundtracks. The work was mainly orchestral, but also included big band arrangements. The G/D lacked the flexibility to do both so he switched to a Reynolds Bb/F.

By 1963, only four significant British orchestral trombone sections featured a G bass trombone: the BBC Symphony Orchestra (Geoffrey Lindon), the BBC Northern (George Cotham) , the BBC Welsh (David Rowsell) and the Sadler’s Wells orchestra (Frank Mills)(the Sadlers Wells Company was renamed English National Opera in 1968). The fact that three of these four were BBC orchestras may be a coincidence, but institutional conservatism is suggested by Frank Mathison’s experience of auditioning for a BBC orchestra some years earlier, at the end of the 1950s, where he had been told in no uncertain terms that Bb bass trombone playing applicants ‘would not be entertained’. Some loyalists took advantage of the glut of G/D trombones that were appearing on the second hand market. George Cotham, bass trombonist with the BBC Northern, never made the switch to the Bb bass trombone. But when his colleagues at the Halle, Terry Nagel, and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Tom Wriggley, did so around 1960, he purchased their old G/Ds and continued to play them in the orchestra until his retirement in the late 1960s. Cotham had an engineering background (he had worked on fighter planes during the war) and had added the D valve himself to the straight G he had been playing up until 1960. He preferred to play without the slide extension handle and removed them from the instruments he acquired from Nagel and Wriggley. After the retirement of Dave Rowsell from the BBC Welsh in 1969, the only remaining G player in a British orchestra was Frank Mills at English National Opera. From 1968 the ENO trombone section consisted of two tenors, a Bb/F bass (Les Lake) and a G/D bass, an arrangement that continued until 1974 when Frank died in post, bringing to an end the era of G bass trombone playing in Britain’s professional orchestras.

You will also note that there was only one article written by Godfrey Kneller, as Gavin Dixon mentions, and which used to be on the British Trombone Society website when I was its webmaster some years ago. (I no longer manage the site and have not done so for some years, since when the content has doubtless been altered thoroughly.)

Read Wick’s Trombone Technique; he goes on for hundreds of pages about the conservatively British way of doing things, and he was the guy who was changing them. Look how long the brass band culture hung on to tiny-bored, tiny-belled tenor trombones. Look at the embargo against non-British instruments after WWII. Heck, look at the fact that brass band charts still score for Eb bass, because the British found them integral to the band sound (America’s 19th century bands dropped them).

Denis Wick's book runs to 132 pages, if you include the appendices, so it is hyperbolic to state that he "goes on for hundreds of pages". Denis Wick made brief mention of how things used to be, but spends most of his time propounding his theories of how the trombone should be played in a variety of settings. Most of the text is about fundamentals of technique.

The reason for brass bands being confined to the domestic market and excluded from foreign large bore imports is simple: the brass band movement did not switch to low pitch in 1928, when the orchestras and military bands switched, instead sticking with high pitch until 1966. Consequently, brass band musicians were obligated to perform on high pitch instruments, which were only produced domestically and were unavailable for import, even if they could have been imported. However, imports were banned because the Board of Trade included Geoffrey Hawkes, one of the big names behind Boosey & Hawkes, who was protecting his own interests. The embargo was lifted in 1958, by which time Boosey & Hawkes were already planning for a future including American imports by involving Denis Wick in the design of larger bore trombones.

I will allow Gavin Dixon to take up the story again. Note that in the brass band world, forces much greater than mere individuals were at work. In particular, the machinations of Boosey & Hawkes should be closely observed, as they are pivotal.

Even after the import embargo on musical instruments was lifted in 1958, Boosey & Hawkes retained an effective monopoly on both the military band and the brass band markets. Parade instruments used by military bands had to be silver plated, which was uncommon for American imports. The brass band movement retained its own particularly British requirement in the form of high pitch (A=452.5 Hz), which it only relinquished in the mid-1960s. As a result, the pace of change in both band worlds was tied to the changes in production at Boosey & Hawkes long after orchestral bass trombone players had switched to American instruments.

On the 9th August 1958, the British Bandsman, the weekly journal of the brass band movement, ran a front page editorial entitled ‘An End to the G Trombone Handle’. The article discusses (although does not name) the Boosey & Hawkes 555 Bb/F bass trombone, saying that it has recently been adopted by the Munn & Felton Band (now the Virtuosi GUS Band) and Ransome & Marles Band (now the Ransome Band) and also mentioning in passing the existence of G trombones with D valves, which, it opines are inferior to the new Bb/F. The article was almost certainly the work of Eric Ball, then editor of the British Bandsman, and also (not coincidentally) conductor of the Ransome & Marles Band at the time.

The article promotes the Bb/F bass trombone in polemic terms, calculated to animate the defenders of the G. It opens: ‘For years our G Trombone handle has been laughed at in different parts of the world,’ and describing the handle as an ‘anachronism’. A letter published on the 6th of September shows at least one reader, a William Bower of Bradford, rising to the bait. He points out that the bass trombonists in the top bands in his area, Black Dyke, Brighouse & Rastrick and Carlton Main continue to thrill him with their player’s ‘magnificent handling of the G-trombone’, thinking it unlikely that a ‘glorified tenor trombone’ would have the same effect. He concludes ‘...if the time comes when I have to hand over my “G” to receive a boy’s trombone, the effect will be equivalent to attending the funeral of a well loved friend.’

William Bower’s sentiments are amplified in a further letter on the subject published anonymously on the 21st March the following year. This letter objects primarily to the addition of the thumb valve to both tenor and bass trombones, saying that the mitigation of the air column by the valve in combination with the wider bore profile leads to a ‘loss of brilliance’ (a complaint regularly made in the Bandsman’s letters column a few years later in connection with the adoption of low pitch). This second correspondent’s complaint is with Boosey & Hawkes (again not mentioned by name), who are accused of imposing thumb valves and discarding the G trombone to ease mass production. This was perhaps a reaction to an advertising campaign by Boosey & Hawkes, which sought to introduce the F valve to the tenor trombone, the Bb/F bass trombone and wide-bore instruments in general to the brass band world simultaneously. An advertisement in the British Bandsman on 17th October 1959 extols the virtues of the wide-bore ‘Imperial’ tenor trombone, adding ‘...or you can wait a little while for the ‘Imperial Bb and F to come along...and a companion Bass Rotary Trombone will also be available in this superb quality.’

The British brass band world adopted low pitch (ie A=440 Hz) in the mid-1960s, a move engineered by Boosey & Hawkes through their announcement in 1964-5 that production of high pitch instruments was coming to an end. But the G trombone survived this modernisation, and Boosey & Hawkes continued to produce G trombones in low pitch. The slide handle of the G trombone seems to have taken on an iconic status among traditionalists in the brass band movement; a short editorial in the Bandsman in 1962, contradicts the journal’s earlier position, saying: ‘As to the bass trombone, the brass bandsman’s liking for the “G-bass trombone” is a source of puzzlement and wonder to many, especially outside the Commonwealth. Being to some degree traditionalists we should hate not to hear and see this fine-toned instrument in our bands.’ Clearly, the visual aspect of the instrument was as important as its sound quality.

Price was as important a factor as traditionalism in the continuing use of the G trombone in brass bands in the 1960s. In February 1965, a sliver plated Bb/F bass trombone from Boosey & Hawkes cost £101 10s after tax, while a silver plated straight G trombone cost £63. But traditionalism continued to play its part. When Chris Stearn joined the National Youth Brass Band in 1969 (on a Bb bass trombone), he was told that he would not be considered for the principle bass trombone chair unless he played the G. By the mid 1970s, the use of the G bass trombone was almost entirely restricted to lower section brass bands. As it was one of the few instruments that could be converted cheaply and easily from high pitch (by replacing the tuning slide), many older straight G trombones survived the transition and continued to be employed until they were no longer fit for service. Gareth Jones joined the Pontardulais Band near Swansea, South Wales in 1969, and was given a Boosey & Hawkes straight G trombone that his father had previously played with the band in 1947. When its condition became critical in 1973, he was told (truthfully or not) that the band could not find a new G and he was bought a Boosey & Hawkes Bb/F Imperial instead.

The few reports of G bass trombones being used on a regular basis beyond the mid 1970s mainly concern older players continuing to the ends of their careers with it. One such was John Curtis, who played G trombone with the Sidmouth Town Band from 1923 until 1979, another was Geoff Povey, who played G with the West Drayton Band until at least 1984. Australian bands may have continued to use the G trombone longer than their British counterparts. One of the very last sales of a new G bass trombone was of a Boosey & Hawkes instrument for Fred Cullum in 1981. At the time, Cullum played in the Wollongong Band in New South Wales and continued on the G with the Walkers Engineering Works Band in Maryborough NSW until the late 1980s. The last G trombones to appear in the Boosey & Hawkes ledgers are an order of 5 G/D instruments completed on the 15th September 1978. One of these was destined to be sent out as part of a complete set to a band in Lincolnshire. The set included both a G/D and a Bb/F bass trombone. The player clearly opted for the latter as the G survives today in remarkably good condition.

This latter instrument from Lincolnshire now resides in my collection.

[Bach5G]

“The G bass trombone was in use only for about 150 years, from circa 1820 to circa 1970”.

1820, Beethoven’s piano sonata #30 and Liszt’s first public performance at age 9.

1970, Stockhausen, Expo, for three players with shortwave radios and sound projectionist; Ligeti, Continuum.

[fsgazda]

When I was in school in NY in the early 1990s, many players had switched to heavyweight bells (either the Bach heavy or the at the time brand new Edwards). Heavy mouthpieces were also all the rage.

Just like Bob Hughes was so influential in the UK, in the US it was Charlie Vernon on bass and Joe Alessi on tenor. Charlie played much bigger mouthpieces than most others, and while JA started on a Bach 5G, he eventually switched to a much larger rim and was an early adopter of the Edwards. Literally dozens of advanced students that I knew in and around NY sold their 42s to get an Edwards at that time.

It took awhile for these trends to permeate through the ecosystem, but the swing back started quite a few years ago. Now many more players are playing lightweight bells, even in the biggest orchestras, and (again due to the influence of Joe Alessi) the rotor (or rotax in this case) valve is replacing axial flows among many tenor players.

[fsgazda]

Another thought. These changes to bigger and heavier happened in orchestras. Many of the great commercial/freelance players who stayed on smaller/lighter equipment didn't have university teaching positions so they didn't influence the next generation equipment-wise.

[brtnats]

Edward: You are a wonderful scholar of the trombone who has, on occasion, a tendency to miss the forest because of the trees.

As noted above, the G bass was used from 1820-1970. How much of the standard repertoire does that cover? And what was the status of the bass trombone in the rest of Europe or America at that time? Those are rhetorical and don’t require copy/paste.

I don’t have my first edition of Wick’s book handy, and yes I was being hyperbolic to underscore the point, but I specifically remember him saying such things as British orchestras being slow to adopt newer instruments, and only really adopting medium bored instruments because they were better made than the smaller bores in vogue. I also remember him saying that it wasn’t until British players adopted the larger bore instruments that their sections were on par with those of other nations. If I have misquoted, I do apologize. I have no doubt you’ll rush out and type the quotes verbatim if I have.

Wick certainly was not THE authority on the matter, but he is absolutely one of the major players who pushed for the wider adoption of larger-bored instruments. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic at all to say that the British fascination with the 88H and the 62H have a great deal to do with Wick, and his contemporaries, rejecting earlier, and arguably “more British” instruments. He himself talked about it like it was a major disruption.

I’m simply making a linear argument. The British have a musical history that’s very different from their contemporaries. That history involves a fair amount of conservatism when measured against those contemporaries. I believe we still see so many 88H and 62H variants in Britain because of that. There’s been no disruptive influence like Wick to break up the pattern.

[FOSSIL]

History is a construct after the fact....often the facts get in the way. The Philharmonia guys were the first to buy Conns on an American tour, but the customs people were tipped off and the instruments confiscated on their return to the UK.

Chris

[Posaunus]

And in my mind, it's all now a tempest in a teapot. I'll let the historians continue to write on, but the proof is in the pudding. (Enough with the analogies.) The British orchestras I have heard lately (live and recorded) sound great, with full-throated wonderful-sounding low brass sections. (Who cares what brand instruments they play?) Same holds for U.K. jazz and big bands. Carry on!

[sf105]

Perhaps the UK scene is affected by the fact that there isn't a decent large hall in London: the Festival Hall is a barn, the Barbican is a conference centre with pretensions, and the Albert Hall houses Zeppelins.

Other cities are much better supplied.

There is a new concert hall scheduled to be built in the city of London on the site currently occupied by the museum of London as part of the cultural mile and was part of the deal bringing Sir Simon Rattle to the LSO

There was talk, not sure how likely that is under current circumstances, although the site is being made available.

[WGWTR180]

And in my mind, it's all now a tempest in a teapot. I'll let the historians continue to write on, but the proof is in the pudding. (Enough with the analogies.) The British orchestras I have heard lately (live and recorded) sound great, with full-throated wonderful-sounding low brass sections. (Who cares what brand instruments they play?) Same holds for U.K. jazz and big bands. Carry on!

Truth!!!

[sf105]

While we're talking mouthpieces, I believe Terry Nagle in the Halle used a 1G, and continued to use it when he moved up to first.

[FOSSIL]

While we're talking mouthpieces, I believe Terry Nagle in the Halle used a 1G, and continued to use it when he moved up to first.

I heard that story thirty years ago....then it was a 2G, which was enough to shock at the time. The 1G had not been made back then anyway. He was also said to have used a 72H on first at the start.

Chris

[imsevimse]

Okay, in another thread, surprise was voiced at the British trombone scene being quite static in it's use of the same sort of equipment as it used 50 or 60 years ago....
Thinking about this, and I am talking orchestras here, the symphony and opera music we play is largely unchanged from 50 years ago or even 100 years ago so why has equipment changed so much in the last 40 years ? I am not wanting another fight over perceived quality improvements...why are instruments and particularly mouthpieces getting so much bigger when the music we play has not changed ?

Chris

I'm not sure gear has become bigger over here. In the 80ies all tenors at the accademy were playing Bach 42 and Conn 88h with Bach 4G mouthpieces. I know Denis Wick was in Stockholm in the 70ies and also when I studied there. He made an impression still talked about.

I know the former principal of the Swedish Radio Symphony orchestra Christer Torge played a Bach 36B on first and his mouthpiece was not that big. Today he is retired and has scaled down to a Bach 16 but still plays professionally and my friend Håkan Björkman who is the current principal plays a Yamaha YSL-892ZX which is the size of a King 3B. He use his own signature Yamaha mouthpiece with that horn.

It seems the professional symphony orchestras here did not change to large equipment. At the Opera in the 80ies it was maybe different since the two principals played Bach 4G mouthpieces and Bach 42 horns. I think they had another kind of need in that orchestra. They were also the ones who influenced the students at the accademy to play Bach 4G mouthpieces when I studied there.

Today the professionals I have met in classical music do not play big equipment. Conn 88h and Bach 42 are still very popular with the old rotors. Basstrombones for classical can be Holton TR-183, Holton TR-185, Holton 169 and King 6B or Conns. I have only met a couple on double inline Thayers.

/Tom

[EdwardSolomon]

History is a construct after the fact....often the facts get in the way. The Philharmonia guys were the first to buy Conns on an American tour, but the customs people were tipped off and the instruments confiscated on their return to the UK.

Chris

That may be the first orchestral hit by HM Customs, but I recall Don Lusher saying that the Ted Heath Band trombones came back with a set of new Conn trombones from the USA and the bass trombone was confiscated.

[Basbasun]

Well, in Sweden the equipment has going through ups and downs. !960 many proffesionel trombone player played 12C. That was not considered to small. No bass trombonist played bigger the 1 1/2G, well there was no bigger to buy to start. Dennis Wick vissited us at the accademi 1965, many students bougth the mpc as he played, actually nobody could make a good sound on them then. Latter in the 70th there was a growing trend, 4G was often used.
Around the middle of the 80th it has stabilised. Almost. Almost no bass trombonist play 1 1/2G (yes someone do)
7C is for alto. The biggest basstrombone mpc used in town is 30mm id. It is going up and down I say.
I played (at home of course, where else?) the whole Phil Teele bok on 1 1/2G, it does work good.

[Basbasun]

I think it was around 1970 when the second bonist i Stockholm Philharmonic told me "All the young guys play so big mouthpieces nowadays, so I grade up from 12C to 7c", at that time all orchestra players played Bach 36 or conn 79 or Bach 50 Conn 60 in Stockholm.

[timothy42b]

An interesting thread and I love reading your first person experiences.

I wonder though, given the Sweden accounts. Back in those days a big rim came with a big cup, and a small rim with a small cup. The modular mouthpieces can't have been very available.

Is it possible that some of those players would have preferred a much bigger rim if they could get the shallower cup size for the sound? And vice versa, some of those who chose a big rim really wanted a small rim and deep cup, and settled on their approach that way?

[imsevimse]

An interesting thread and I love reading your first person experiences.

I wonder though, given the Sweden accounts. Back in those days a big rim came with a big cup, and a small rim with a small cup. The modular mouthpieces can't have been very available.

Is it possible that some of those players would have preferred a much bigger rim if they could get the shallower cup size for the sound? And vice versa, some of those who chose a big rim really wanted a small rim and deep cup, and settled on their approach that way?

How could anyone now?

My guess is they were used to the small rims and therefore mastered them with ease. They would probably have been more concerned of making a sound that blends with the rest of the section and not be occupied with thoughts on how to make room for the lips in a small rim. They had not the choice so they did not bother. I don't think anyone at that time strived for the darkest sound possible either. The ideal trombone sound was different when people played 12 C. If people can make a small french horn mouthpiece work with their lips and not think that is a too small rim then the rim sizes we discuss as being small are huge.

Even today not all people think a big rim is better. As I was studying at the accademy when the new deeper sound spread with those big 4G mouthpieces I remember I could not blend with them who played the 4G mouthpieces. At the time I did not understand it was the mouthpiece that made the difference. I just thought they were superior players who could make those. 547 horns sound like tubas. I never wanted to sound like that and did not have to because I took another path towards jazz.

To me a big size rim affects both the sound and how fluent I'm on the horn. I also think everything is more neat and easy available on a small rim. On the contrary a big rim is more tiring to play (for me) and I don't get the same brilliance in the high register. I know this is individual but this is my experience. The same with choice of horn.

Mouthpieces with shallow cups and smaller rims do fit .525 horns very well. The large mouthpieces with larger rims have their place with me too, as bass trombone mouthpieces or if I for some reason would use a 547 horn with a 4G mouthpiece as a bass

/Tom