Independent Bass Trombone Tuning

[ithinknot]

Recently got my first indy and have been trying a few different options. Just thinking aloud...

b/4 F/G – ‘quarter flat F/G’

Nothing new under the sun, of course, but this idea was new to me. If you’re an indy player who already uses the second valve more than the first, this might be of interest. Otherwise, probably not.

…based on a few considerations:

• F/Gb/D is great for keeping low C and B in the middle of the slide, but if you tune the F side high enough to have the flat second partial F usable in 1st, you’re left with two valves relatively close in pitch – reducing the diversity and even spacing of patterns further down the slide.
• On tenor, as per a suggestion from Doug a few months back, I prefer to sacrifice the low F in 1st in favor of a real low C at the end of the slide, with tenor C in hard 1st against the bumpers.
• F/G/Eb, with its whole tone difference between valves, opens up lots of new ‘snakes and ladders’ options but leaves low C and B a bit ‘old fashioned’ and distant.
• The Bollinger second valve tuning (halfway between G and Gb) has many advantages in triadic groupings and duplication of upper octave positions, when used on its own. However, its double valve combination has no significant advantage over F/Gb/D – you still don’t have an Eb in 1st, you lose the faux-pedal Bb in 7th, and everything in between is further out – and the triadic alignment in the double valve range is neither better nor worse than in the system below.
• Like Bollinger's tuning, this would be most advantageous on big modern valves that reduce slurring/venting challenges, but that doesn't make it any less ergonomically useful on standard rotors.

The following assumes you play off the bumpers, with the non-altered numeric slide positions given on that basis. It’s probably over-precise; your instrument will vary in slide length and in relative second partial flatness/third partial sharpness.

First valve – a quarter tone below F
second partial Eb in normal 3rd – giving third partial C in hard 1st against the bumpers, and a proper low C at the end of the slide (arm permitting)

Second valve – a quarter tone below G
second partial F in normal 3rd – with both valves together giving low D in hard-ish 1st, as per F/Gb/D tuning

Check: A, B, C# all in normal 2nd

Second valve third partial	D – sharp 1st	Db – 2nd	C – very slightly flat 3rd	B – slightly flat 4th	Bb – 5.5th		A – 7th
First valve third partial	C – hard 1st	B – 2nd	Bb – flat 3rd	A – 4.5th		Ab –6th	G – flat 7th
Open	Bb	A	Ab	G	Gb	F	E
Second valve second partial		Gb - sharp 2nd	F – 3rd	E – slightly flat 4th	Eb –flat 5th	D – 6.5th
First valve second partial		E – 1.5th	Eb – 3rd	D – flat 4th		Db – 6th	C – flat 7th
Both valves	D – hard-ish 1st	Db – 2.5th		C – 4th	B – 5.5th		Bb – flat 7th

Advantages:

• First valve remains the same as the ‘maximum range’ (i.e. real low C) tuning on single valve bass or tenor
• All the triadic benefits of the Bollinger second valve as used on its own
• Standard D tuning for both valves together – C and B remain conveniently central – and double valve major triads are neither better nor worse than in the Bollinger tuning (in which Db major happens to be the triad that aligns vertically in 3rd – here, it’s C major in 4th - and any of these systems requires small slide adjustments to be learned regardless)
• Whole tone spacing of valves gives more pattern flexibility – beginning in 6th/7th with 2nd partial ‘pedal’ Bb, there's a complete chromatic scale within any 2/3 position vertical ‘stack’ you choose
• … and various other nice options - having Eb or F as reference points in 3rd is especially satisfying
• A/B/C# in 2nd very quickly checks all tuning slide positions in orchestral contexts
• If you’re an indy player who usually plays low F on the second valve for tuning flexibility anyway, then giving up the Bb triadic tuning in 1st position isn’t a big deal. (You just get a triad for Ab in 3rd instead, and more options either side. In fact, you do still have a flashy valve/linear slide arpeggio option for low Bb (Bb 2T 5.5th, F open 6th, D 2T 6.5th, ‘pedal’ Bb 1+2T 7th – and that pattern carries up the slide even better than in the Bollinger system because of the both-trigger D tuning.)
• No special requirements on the F slide (you’re just pulling out further than usual, but well within the capacity of standard tuning slides)

Disadvantages:

• Same second valve tuning requirements as Bollinger – extremely straightforward on some instruments, less so on others
• Only going to work for players already used to playing long on the slide/off the bumpers
• Having a low C at the end of the slide isn’t worth much if your arms aren’t long enough to reach it
• Giving up the first valve low F/full Bb major triad in 1st probably strikes some players as particularly disturbing. If you’re going back and forth between dependent and independent, I can see that this might be a dealbreaker; otherwise, probably a mind-mapping/symbolic issue. But if the idea bothers you, you probably haven’t read this far

Whatcha think?

[elmsandr]

Fascinating. My mind usually goes towards being on the High side for the G and even lower on the F, maybe even E or bE to get whatever you want with the double valve. I'm not a huge independent valve fan, so I haven't really bothered to figure out what I really want to do and cut in to any brass.

My first thought... no way am I going to think about learning this... but after some consideration there's a lot to love there. I just don't know if I would go through this re-conditioning and not even get a G in first out of it. Related, I really want to make a quick valve section with two equal short slide receivers, able to get BOTH valves to G with a simple crook. From there, by simply changing crooks with different length legs, you could have whatever tuning you want on either valve... G, bG, Gb, F, bF, E, bE, Eb, etc... would be interesting and versatile to figure out what works in reality rather than just on paper. I also think I am too out of practice to be able to figure it out anymore.

Cheers,
Andy

[Burgerbob]

I must be a caveman. F/Gb/D seems to get everything done with the minimal fuss. Maybe everyone else is better at learning new valve tunings than me..

[ithinknot]

My first thought... no way am I going to think about learning this... but after some consideration there's a lot to love there.

... changing crooks ...

I like it so far. I'm used to playing keyboards with varied octave spans, split meantone keys, 'short octave' layouts, old organs with all sorts of crazy layouts, etc etc... so the idea of this sort of thing changing isn't too upsetting. The Bollinger system has definite advantages, and to me this has a few more.

I'm trying this on a Benge 290, which has a G slide plus extension for Gb... b/4 G just works with the G slide hanging all the way out, but if I stick with this long term I'll split the stock Gb extension to give
| stubby-legged G crook | (optional stubby Gb extender) | long-legged b/4 G extender |
... no new tubing needed, and a full pull range retained for Gb and b/4 G.

I must be a caveman

Is paleo still a thing?

[elmsandr]

I must be a caveman. F/Gb/D seems to get everything done with the minimal fuss. Maybe everyone else is better at learning new valve tunings than me..

Well, some of us are engineers so this is just more math. I am much better as an engineer than as a trombonist.

That said, I used to go back and forth with tunings, keys, and valve setups.... Getting older I am not in nearly as much practice as I used to.

To directly answer your question, I always phrase it like this:
For usage in general on an indy I find Gb > F.
Likewise G > F More useful for more things all over the horn.
Similarly G > Gb Just gives you a little more to work with. Even the Bollinger tuning is just moving farther in this direction to get some of the goods here.
BUT
For two valves D >>>>>>> Eb.

So, is there something we can do to keep the utility of double valve D tuning while trying to improve the overall usability of each independent valve? F and Gb are very close and overlap very inefficiently. They combine nicely, but is there a better plan?

I think this would lay out great on a independent Trubore setup. I need more valves like I need a hole in my head, but some day....

Cheers,
Andy

[ithinknot]

For usage in general on an indy I find Gb > F.
Likewise G > F More useful for more things all over the horn.
Similarly G > Gb Just gives you a little more to work with. Even the Bollinger tuning is just moving farther in this direction to get some of the goods here.
BUT
For two valves D >>>>>>> Eb.

So, is there something we can do to keep the utility of double valve D tuning while trying to improve the overall usability of each independent valve? F and Gb are very close and overlap very inefficiently. They combine nicely, but is there a better plan?

My thoughts exactly. Combination D is really nice. But independent Gb didn't arise because of its specific usefulness - it's the consequence of Bb/F/D being a good dependent setup. Of course, Bb/F/Gb/D works just fine - but if you were starting from scratch, is it necessarily the optimal distribution of the 60-something inches required to get to D?

Realistically, the thumb valve concept is always going to be 'F-ish', at least for the vast majority of people - Bb/F is perfectly sensible on tenor, and that's not going to change - hence this tuning staying well within the adjustability of a normal F slide.

I realize these things are at least as psychological as they are ergonomic - the arm will probably go where it's told, but you have to like the mental image of your chosen system. I think this one stacks up nicely and, assuming you can get over the loss of a Bb valve triad with the slide lock left on, I'm not sure it has too many disadvantages in use.

FWIW, the difference between Gb and b/4 G (Bollinger) is exactly 4", so 2" per side. On a standard Gb wrap designed to be pulled out a little in normal use, you might only need to lose 1.5" to get there - and you might even still have the leg length left over to pull to Gb (picturing Bach 50B3O, 50A3 here; a little more complicated on axials, where you'd need one of the narrower Edwards or Shires wraps). Obviously, it's even easier on instruments that already have G/Gb tuning options.

[FOSSIL]

I got an indi bass in the mid 70s...it was in Bb/F/G/Eb...so that's how I used it. around 1980 I went to Bb/F/bE/C....it worked but was heavy. Early 90s I got an Edwards which came as Bb/F/Gb/D so I re learned that set up. Early 2000s I had a Bartok C4Orch to do and reverted to Bb/F/G/Eb.... been there ever since. funny old world.

Chris

[soseggnchips]

Up in the loft, I have a 50B3 with a massive slide that puts the second valve in D by itself. I can't remember off the top of my head what both valves together produces, but it's too low to be useful - I think it might have been a sharp pedal Bb.

I've never understood what the point of this setup is - it seems to give you the worst of both worlds in that you can only really use one valve at a time (like a dependent) but you always have the resistance of both valves to blow through. It's made doubly impractical by the weight of the thing. In fact, the tuning slide is sufficiently heavy that if you hold the horn vertically it'll promptly return to the 'fully in' position.

Fortunately, a regular Gb tuning slide fits fine, and back when I played it that's what I used. I've not used it in ages due to a split in the bell. One of these days I'll get screw fittings put onto it and my 50B2 so I can swap the valve sections around.

[hyperbolica]

When I first started playing bass, I liked the G/Eb tuning. I forget why, probably because I like the G tuning in the independent 2nd valve. But after playing a couple of years, I now prefer Gb/D. for these reasons:

- Bb triad in 1st position
- gb/db in flat first position with 2nd valve alone really gives easy access to a couple of miserable notes
- Eb in flat 3rd is not so bad that you really need to move it to 1st, but D in very flat 4th really benefits greatly from moving it to 1st position.

I like to line up all the partials and valve combos 1st position as closely as possible. Arm length is a limiting factor, so it's something I like to maximize. I don't buy in to flat E or flat F. A flat note on trombone doesn't exist, because you can never play the in-tune note so its unusable. Flat F is really just E in flat first. It doesn't matter where the flat note is, it only matters where the playable note is in tune.

You can line up the open horn and the 1st trigger (mostly - F has to pull in and C push out), and you can line up the 1st and 2nd combination, but you can't line up the 2nd valve by itself. Or I guess you could line up the second valve by itself, but then the 1+2 combo would not be lined up.

Anyway, it's a trade off. I played Eb dependent for a while right along side D indy. You can make the switch mentally, it's not that tough. In the end, I decided the D tuning was more my style, but I get why people like Eb.

[ithinknot]

I like to line up all the partials and valve combos 1st position as closely as possible.

I get it. But you can't get all the way there because of the inherent tuning discrepancies, whereas if you abandon the conceptual goal and accept that there will be useful notes more than 'minor adjustment' distance north and south of your normal 1st, you're then free to really line up the second partials (in 3rd) and third partials (in 2nd). And low D stays in 1st!

A flat note on trombone doesn't exist

Yeah, I know what you mean about 'flat' as a label. Maybe 'whole tone spaced/combination D' would be a better name for what I'm describing - rather than specifying the non-real notes in 1st, it covers the fundamental features (and of course mathematically there's only one solution to those named characteristics).

[fwbassbone]

Pick one then practice.

[Matt K]

I do a similar tuning. Slightly flat F for first, but I do a tight G in first. I totally love it. Makes weird licks you get in contemporary big band stuff a breeze. I don't know how I played without a G attachment before this. Just... so much easier. If I need to play in the basement I get out my Gb slide or pull my F to E or Eb.

[GabrielRice]

I must be a caveman. F/Gb/D seems to get everything done with the minimal fuss. Maybe everyone else is better at learning new valve tunings than me..

You can come visit me in my cave anytime.

[Johnstad]

I must be a caveman. F/Gb/D seems to get everything done with the minimal fuss. Maybe everyone else is better at learning new valve tunings than me..

Second that…

[FOSSIL]

Bb/F/G/Eb ......my cave is deeper and darker....

Chris

[marccromme]

I am curious, are there any opinions om the equivalent of the german contra bass trombone tuning F/D/Bb/Ab which on a bass bone would be Bb/G/Eb/Db ???

Thi system seem to work well for contra, at least for half of the players, so why not on bass?

[Matt K]

I am curious, are there any opinions om the equivalent of the german contra bass trombone tuning F/D/Bb/Ab which on a bass bone would be Bb/G/Eb/Db ???

Thi system seem to work well for contra, at least for half of the players, so why not on bass?

Mine can be set up that way but I haven't played with it very much because I like the extra flexibility where I play most of the time, which is in the bass staff for anything I currently have coming up. The Gb/G/Eb/Db setup would give you a very comfortable C and Cb and the G attachment is really good at splitting the slide in half in the bass staff so you don't lose everything by foregoing the F attachment.

[mrdeacon]

Bb/F/G/Eb is the way.

[FOSSIL]

Bb/F/G/Eb is the way.

Welcome to the dark side

Chris

[FOSSIL]

I am curious, are there any opinions om the equivalent of the german contra bass trombone tuning F/D/Bb/Ab which on a bass bone would be Bb/G/Eb/Db ???

Thi system seem to work well for contra, at least for half of the players, so why not on bass?

The bass has a seven position slide but most F contras only have a five position slide...thus they use their valves differently.

Chris

[Burgerbob]

I am curious, are there any opinions om the equivalent of the german contra bass trombone tuning F/D/Bb/Ab which on a bass bone would be Bb/G/Eb/Db ???

Thi system seem to work well for contra, at least for half of the players, so why not on bass?

Contra is a different beast with long and missing slide positions. Mine only has 4 you can reach! It's a trade off, I wouldn't want to use that same system on bass for a few reasons.

[RustBeltBass]

I must be a caveman. F/Gb/D seems to get everything done with the minimal fuss. Maybe everyone else is better at learning new valve tunings than me..

You can come visit me in my cave anytime.

Maybe I am a caveman, too. I played this combination all my professional life long. In December I bought Jeff Dee’s Edwards with Shires Axials and the Bollinger tuning. The horn sounds absolutely wonderful and I love everything about it, the Bollinger system makes a lot of sense to me, but I have to admit, it takes me longer to get used to it than I would have liked to. I am not yet at a point where I would use it as my go to instrument despite how easy and open it plays. Hope I get to that point soon....

[Finetales]

I enjoy pondering alternative valve tunings as much as anyone (and have spreadsheets to prove it!), but I don't think a tuning where you lose both F in 1st AND Gb/G in 1st is a very good idea. I also think would be difficult to adjust to a tuning where both valves are outside of 12-TET. I'm sure it could work for some intrepid players, but probably not many.

I play a normal indy and use my second valve a lot more than the first, but that F valve alone is still extremely useful. I've messed with playing in E/Gb and for some things it worked very nicely, and I'm sure E/G would be a similar story. But I don't think either is overall better than F/Gb or F/G. (And of course, we've gone down the road of how to make a bass have F/G valves with resulting D a few times before in the past here!)

In my opinion, the most intriguing alternative tunings involve 2 independent valves where one is ascending. Bb/F/ascending C/G and Bb/E/ascending C/Gb both have pretty spectacular alternate position options, and would have an additional benefit of lighter weight.

But until I can throw money at getting such an instrument built (and only to augment my F/Gb, not replace it), I'll be happily residing in my F/Gb cave as well.

[ithinknot]

spreadsheets

I also think would be difficult to adjust to a tuning where both valves are outside of 12-TET. I'm sure it could work for some intrepid players, but probably not many.

It's a tough sell. The idea of (some) non-real notes in 1st is probably only appealing to the conscientiously perverse

Two qs:
F-valve aside, did you ever spend much time with the Bollinger second valve tuning?

Is a 72H slide long enough that with F in first, there's a totally real, in tune at ff C at the non-precarious end of the slide?

Having the single valve sound/feel as an option for that note is one of the nicer features of this scheme. There are also some non-spreadsheety advantages that have shown up - maybe it's just my instrument, or maybe these are more universal nodal trouble spots but, for example, with the second valve in Gb the C in flat 2nd sounds and feels pretty nasty, but in 3rd in flat G it's surprisingly fine, and the problem doesn't seem to have transferred to an adjacent note.

(On that topic, I can see that the ascending valve schemes could be great, and/but it'd be interesting to find out how different the blow and unforseen quirks might be.)

[Finetales]

Two qs:
F-valve aside, did you ever spend much time with the Bollinger second valve tuning?

I haven't played a horn tuned that way. I do like my second valve as sharp as it will go, so the Gbs and Dbs are out from the bumpers and C with the 2nd valve is only slightly above 3rd.

Is a 72H slide long enough that with F in first, there's a totally real, in tune at ff C at the non-precarious end of the slide?

Very much so! One of the reasons I love the 72H. I don't use it for low C very often, but I use it pretty much exclusively for pedal C.

There are also some non-spreadsheety advantages that have shown up - maybe it's just my instrument, or maybe these are more universal nodal trouble spots but, for example, with the second valve in Gb the C in flat 2nd sounds and feels pretty nasty, but in 3rd in flat G it's surprisingly fine, and the problem doesn't seem to have transferred to an adjacent note.

My C with the 2nd valve is only slightly above 3rd and speaks nicely there (nicer than in 1st).

(On that topic, I can see that the ascending valve schemes could be great, and/but it'd be interesting to find out how different the blow and unforseen quirks might be.)

Of course, and that's one of the things you can't figure out with just spreadsheets!

[ithinknot]

Is a 72H slide long enough that with F in first, there's a totally real, in tune at ff C at the non-precarious end of the slide?

Very much so! One of the reasons I love the 72H. I don't use it for low C very often, but I use it pretty much exclusively for pedal C.

Nice. Gotta try one some time. I'm sure there were decent arguments about cylindrical vs conical real estate that put that bell/slide ratio out of fashion in the inline/TIB era... but, as someone with enough arm to feel comfortable down there, it sure seems a shame not to have the option. Springs in the barrels, extra length at the other end, living the dream.

[marccromme]

The bass has a seven position slide but most F contras only have a five position slide...thus they use their valves differently.

Chris

All my tenor and bass trombones have only 6 useful positions. For me, that is. I am only 169 cm heigh. ....