Best Dependent bass design?

[Tooloud]

I think KBiggs is onto something with this statement : "To me, the primary advantage of dependent over independent is the difference in sound and response. I think it’s easier to get a consistent, stable sound with a dependent horn because you have about 3” of tapered tubing at the distal end of the neckpipe. On indy horns, that taper is replaced by the second valve. That taper in that spot makes the difference, I believe."
I also alternated my DGSS with a King 8B independent and totally agree. I think a dependent setup is not a drawback but a feature to be exploited. Anybody else ?

Sure! See my post above!

[WGWTR180]

I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion, but the best dependent bass is the Duo Gravis. It's the only one that is meaninfully different, the only one that people actually ask for.

Dependent horns are ok as long as you're a new bass player or never have an urge to use the second lever by itself. As soon as you want to use it, you can't go back. It's ok, there's no shame in avoiding the second lever by itself. Lots of people made a career on dependent bass. So what? You play a few more 5th positions.

Not true in my opinion. I have 2 inline horns and 2 dependent horns. I can switch effortlessly. Never missed a note because I hit the wrong valve.

[hornbuilder]

Similar to Bill, I regularly switch between dependent and independent, with no issues. I also never had any issues when I had Independent contra in the mix, as well.

[tbonesullivan]

Yes, I was really hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread about indi vs dep and which is better. We've had that before... But more about valve placement, distance between valves, wrap design and bore sizes etc. what effect do they have and which is the best design for optimal playing.

I'm honestly not sure the valve distance and configuration matters nearly as much as the overall bracing structure and weight of the bell section. And of course, ERGONOMICS. Thankfully due to my yamaha addiction I don't have to worry about adjusting to different trigger designs.

I can say I've never really noticed a real difference between the stacked 612RII I have and the Doug Yeo model, which has the insert-style second valve in terms of change in blow or feel. As with any dependent (or independent) system with more tubing involved, the response changes. All I can say is that it is probably one of the best implementations of a slot in valve for a dependent system that I have ever seen, and the ergonomics of the valves are great.

[MStarke]

Sorry for deviating from the actual question before and going into the dependent vs. independent discussion.

So reg dependent designs. Somehow I generally like the elegance that most dependents have. I personally find them somehow visually more appealing than independents

I think I have seen two in the past (not in real life, but probably hear on the forum) that had two different valve types involved. Obviously custom. I think both were with a regular rotor as first and one with a Thayer and the other with a Meinlschmidt Radial Flow (?) as second valve. That might be interesting. You keep the playing and resistance of the "open" horn mostly original and add as little resistance as possible by adding the second valve.

Ergonomically it might be a little less favorable as these larger valves are heavier.

[spencercarran]

I'll bet a significant portion of those players are either older or can't get their dependent horn from an existing boutique (because they stopped making them).

This bolded part I'd believe - custom builders probably sell a relatively high number of dependent basses now that there's not as many off-the-shelf options for dependent.

[tbonesullivan]

This bolded part I'd believe - custom builders probably sell a relatively high number of dependent basses now that there's not as many off-the-shelf options for dependent.

Also, as we have seen, if you are an artist like Bill Reichenbach, you can get Schilke / Greenhoe to make you a dependent horn.

[mrdeacon]

This bolded part I'd believe - custom builders probably sell a relatively high number of dependent basses now that there's not as many off-the-shelf options for dependent.

Also, as we have seen, if you are an artist like Bill Reichenbach, you can get Schilke / Greenhoe to make you a dependent horn.

I mean… it’s offered as a stock option on their website. I think the only custom manufacturer not offering dependent valve sections as an option period is Edwards. Schilke and Rath usually have at least 1 dependent bass at trade shows.

The catch is that if you place an order with Rath, Shires or Schilke you’ll have to special order one and it’ll take 6 months or a year plus to receive since they aren’t on the regular production schedule.

[RJMason]

Maybe not the best design? But I bought an old Yamaha 612 and had it upgraded with some levers and leadpipe from the 830, added a screw collar, and it plays really quite well. D and Eb attachments. All for less than half the price of a custom boutique dependent…think I was $2400 all in.

[WGWTR180]

In my opinion both of these paragraphs don't make sense.

a) People ask at least as much for old Conn 62h and similar setups as well as e g modern Greenhoe, M and W etc dependent setups

b) I have played independent for quite some years, but went back to primarily playing dependent today. all the dependent horns I owned in the past and today had something I preferred over the independent ones. And that minor loss of flexibility is not a real issue at least for me. And as I am certainly not the best reference, think about Bill Reichenbach, John Rojak, Phil Teele, Dave Taylor and many more who play or played dependent for the larger part of their careers

a) I don't think this is true. The big makers (Edwards and Shires) have cut the dependent models from their lineups entirely. I think if we asked Matt, a vast majority of his valve builds would be independent. The only reason Conn and Bach still have them at all is because schools buy them (probably on accident at this point).

b) All of those, for lack of better words, are older players. Retired, working, deceased, and working is not exactly a glowing recommendation for dependent. I don't think we can diminish their contribution to bass trombonedom, but we can also recognize that they probably grew up with dependent and never changed.

You can like dependent all you want, but the evidence is that it's largely obsolete.

FU with the older crap. I've heard some wonderful young players who have chosen the dependent setup.

[Posaunus]

b) All of those, for lack of better words, are older players. Retired, working, deceased, and working is not exactly a glowing recommendation for dependent. I don't think we can diminish their contribution to bass trombonedom, but we can also recognize that they probably grew up with dependent and never changed.

You can like dependent all you want, but the evidence is that it's largely obsolete.

FU with the older crap. I've heard some wonderful young players who have chosen the dependent setup.
[/quote]

Bill is right. Aidan's posts are appearing increasingly ageist, and it's annoying me. I'm older than Bill is, but quite pleased to still be playing the trombone at an acceptable level. And I'm still independent! (Since my bass trombone only has one valve! )

This post was intended to be discussing dependent bass trombone design options, not a diatribe about how all dependent basses are obsolete and their advocates are gravebound and irrelevant.

[Burgerbob]

Facts are facts, sorry guys. Again, you can like whatever tuning you want (singles, anyone?), and obviously people make it work of all ages. But not many.

[boneagain]

I found characteristics like Bob found with my King SS DG.

Over the course of my few years in his shop, George McCracken shared a number of his thoughts about his general design philosphy. Two points which apply to the question from the OP are: symmetry and fluidic flow.

When George talked about symmetry he referred to the placement of impedences in the sound path. On Horn this meant using TWO change valves where many only used one.

When George talked about placement of impedences he was concerned with changes of direction in the sound path. He was most especially talking about sharp changes of direction, such as those in each valve.

George tried larger cores to reduce the sharp direction changes in the DG, but Alan Raph was not satisfied with "fup" noises in valve slurs. George and Alan settled for something larger in diameter than was normal at the time, but small than ideal.

George also placed the 2nd valve as close to the 1st to take out just one more change in direction. He reduced change in direction more by the long horn style loops heading to and from the valves.

Alan had tried the other independents available at the time. He did not like the way they responded. This was a large part of his efforts to have King put someone on the "double valve project." Alan DID like the way his King responded.

Like Bob, Alan also had access to the other King basses. The Duo Gravis was the one he stuck with the most. That was true even though there was an 8B on the cover of his method book

To me, Matt's tight coupling of the dependent valves is a lovely update of the couplings that showed up on the Reynolds and then Duo Gravis.

I will admit, though, that I could only really tell the difference in playing on relatively slow stuff where I was very focused on tone. Lucky for me, I got LOTS of opportunities to dwell on the "big, beautiful sound" (that was what Gordon Halberg used to tell me to strive for at the start of every lesson...)

PS: I don't believe neck tapers play much into the question of the OP, but since it was raised, George was VERY committed to maintaining that. He did experimental stuff with Art Benade at Case Western that showed empirically that the more gradual taper DOES make a difference. It mattered enough that (at least on the original Duo Gravis) the insides of the inner tuning slide were drawn TAPERED. This gave a continuing taper all the way from the valve out the bell. The rate of taper changed, but was still reasonably in line with the "ideal" Bessel function taper George used in drafting the mandrel for the bell.

[hyperbolica]

Facts are facts, sorry guys. Again, you can like whatever tuning you want (singles, anyone?), and obviously people make it work of all ages. But not many.

You're shifting the subject they are referring to. They are calling you out on constantly deriding people older than you. It's a noticeable bias. That line has to get pushed further and further out. Some day you're going to be on the other side of it, and I hope you find people with as little equitable tolerance as you display at times. Your comment about Friedman was inexcusable, and I think there are several people that aren't going to be able to forgive you for that for a while.

I do agree that I prefer indy over dependent and duals over singles.

[Burgerbob]

No comment about Jay here. But I am NOT denigrating old players in this thread. Guess what? Good Indy horns didn't exist when players above a certain age were developing on bass trombone. So some of them stuck with dependent. And that's fine!

I no longer think that is the case, and the math checks out. Almost everyone below a certain age (and a vast majority of modern students) play independent.

Again... Not a quality statement on those that came before, just a generational change.

Did the single players feel attacked when the world moved to dependent doubles? I hope not.

[Finetales]

One real advantage of being on dependent is that you have some really great vintage horns to choose from - much more than the indy crowd. The Duo Gravis has come up a few times in this thread, and they do play and sound great (especially in SS form). I have also played a fabulous Elkhart 62H with a sound to die for. In both cases the dependent setup was a dealbreaker for me, but if I played dependents I would have no reason to go looking for a new horn when that 62H already exists.

On indy, there are much fewer world-class vintage horns out there. Mine was originally a single (1963 72H) that was modified to be independent. But modded horns are a rabbit hole many players have no interest in, so for them the choice is mostly between modern horns.

But at the end of the day, independents becoming vastly more popular than dependents did not happen by accident. Indy is just the better design overall and its mass adoption and standardization is easy proof of that. Consider how the F contrabass trombone went straight to indy...would you want a dependent F contra? I sure wouldn't.

Yes, I was really hoping this wouldn't turn into a thread about indi vs dep and which is better. We've had that before... But more about valve placement, distance between valves, wrap design and bore sizes etc. what effect do they have and which is the best design for optimal playing.

I'm not sure there is an ideal placement and distance of offline valves. For an independent horn you want the neckpipe after the valves to be as long as possible, so you generally want the valves as close together and as close to the slide receiver as possible. For dependents, since the circuit that the second valve drops into is (usually) all cylindrical tubing, I suspect the only real effect of placing the 2nd valve in different locations is weight balance, which is why I would tend to think offset (rather than vertically stacked) is the better option. You can even put the 2nd valve in the F loop tuning slide (the "bird's nest" setup) so that you can easily swap out to another tuning slide without a valve. The only downside there is the more complicated linkage.

Wrap design also really only affects weight balance unless you're trying to make an extremely silly wrap, which is why I think all dependent bass designs should strive to have wraps as pretty as the wraps on dependent Hagmanns.

[Posaunus]

No comment about Jay here.

It's about time ... that you explained your previous comment! We're still waiting.

But I am NOT denigrating old players in this thread.

Guess what? Good Indy horns didn't exist when players above a certain age were developing on bass trombone. So some of them stuck with dependent. And that's fine!

I no longer think that is the case, and the math checks out. Almost everyone below a certain age (and a vast majority of modern students) play independent.

Again, Aidan, you're purposely avoiding the topic of this thread, which is not whether independents are better than dependents, but - (for those [probably older, retired, perhaps senile] obsolete trombonists [whom you have willfully dismissed as being irrelevant] who are still interested) - what are some interesting configurations for dependent bass trombones and which configuration is "best?"

Did the single players feel attacked when the world moved to dependent doubles? I hope not.

They weren't "feeling attacked" - perhaps because no one attacked them then as being "largely obsolete."

[Burgerbob]

I drive a manual car. I love it, it's a blast to drive and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. That doesn't change the fact that the market has decided manuals are obsolete and a vanishingly small portion of vehicles sold today are manual.

[GabrielRice]

I've played A LOT of bass trombones in my life, and one of the very best EVER was a Holton 185 with the dependent D valve on the F valve tuning slide. Ideal? Absolutely not. But boy howdy did that horn play.

I think my favorite Yamaha bass trombone - or at least the one I think responds the best - is the 620G with the dependent valves side-by-side.

In my experience, dependent axial valve sections ALWAYS respond better than independent axial sections, all other components and the valves themselves being the same. For that reason I chose dependent axials for the first Shires bass trombone I bought back in the late 90s.

Then for a few years I played dependent Shires rotors, in the same configuration Matt likes and uses on his instruments. I find that dependent rotary valve sections play bigger and wider than independent valve sections (again, all else being equal) on the open horn, but that independent rotors actually make the response of the instrument more equal between open, one valve, and two valves.

Then I switched to TruBore valves. Dependent TruBores play GREAT, but so do independent, and the difference is smaller than with axial valves, so I switched back to independent valves and stuck with it as I've now gone back to rotary valves generally (Greenhoes at the moment).

I do love a good single valve bass though. Having the option of going lighter in that specific way is great, especially if your jobs, like mine, are usually in symphonic orchestras. YMMV.

[Posaunus]

I drive a manual car. I love it, it's a blast to drive and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. That doesn't change the fact that the market has decided manuals are obsolete and a vanishingly small portion of vehicles sold today are manual.

I'm guessing this would be your response to a topic that asked:
What is the best configuration of a manual transmission?
4 speed? 5-speed? Floor-mounted shifter? Column-mounted shifter?

Why waste the time discussing the topic when you can divert by answering the unasked question by saying manual transmissions are obsolete, and people who use them must be older, retired, or otherwise out of touch?

Are you secretly practicing to be a politician or a lawyer?

[Burgerbob]

Yes, it is my bad for barging in like that.

[hornbuilder]

"the insides of the inner tuning slide were drawn TAPERED. This gave a continuing taper all the way from the valve out the bell. The rate of taper changed, but was still reasonably in line with the "ideal" Bessel function taper George used in drafting the mandrel for the bell."

This is a given, as far as my designs are concerned.

[WGWTR180]

Facts are facts, sorry guys. Again, you can like whatever tuning you want (singles, anyone?), and obviously people make it work of all ages. But not many.

It's not what you say it's how you say it. But you've always been like that. Little quips with very little respect for anyone who's been there ahead of you.

[MrHCinDE]

Sifting through the posts about which is the best dependent setup, is it fair to say that the DG, Elkhart 62h, Shires, Edwards, LI Brassco, Yamaha and Holton variants have some love, the Bach and modern Conn less so?

Even though a majority of elite students and performers choose independent, I would say the vast majority of bass trombonists in the world don’t fit into those categories so it’s great that there’s still a big range of used and new options with dependent setups.

I’ve enjoyed reading the posts here about the comparisons between dependent models. Perhaps more of those who don’t primarily play dependent setups would be kind enough to share the experience on the best and worse dependent horns they’ve played in the past?

[MStarke]

All this back and forth reg independent vs dependent made me think which players I know that play dependent.

The last years I have frequently played with two good professional players who both play dependent horns. One a Bach, the other a Holton (don't know the model number). I know that in the German jazz and bigband scene dependents are very popular. Multiple old Conns and others and I think also at least one of those dependent Leuchter (Fuchs?) models. This includes from my knowledge 3 out of the 4 bass trombonists from the German radio big bands. One of them is a few years younger than me so definitely doesn't fall in that "old guy" schema that has been brought up. Also many of the jazz freelancers seem to play dependents. Admittedly one reason could be that a nice used 62h still costs far less than a new boutique horn.

My guess: The minimal limitation that comes from the dependent setup is far less relevant for these people than the response, resonance and sound that some of these horns have. And yes, I believe that these aspects have to do with the valve setup.

Regarding literature there are certainly examples - Finetales mentioned one I think - that are only really playable with independents, but they are very very few. I cannot remember I personally ever came into that situation. Sometimes it's handy yes. E.g. at the beginning of the Alpine symphony there is a soft slur from middle Db to low Bb which is easy using the second valve. But it can also be played e.g. with 5th position to 1st valve and low 3rd position if you want to reduce slide movement.

Also making the link back to the design aspect: Most of/all these horns have more or less normal rotors, many in that Elkhart 62h side-by-side setup. Certainly not the most open, but it seems to work.

[Finetales]

I've had passages show up on my stand that required an independent 2nd valve to execute as written many times. I think that Ticheli example in my last comment is by far the most common example, as that piece is standard concert band repertoire. But I've come across plenty of others over the years. And then on top of that, countless passages that don't REQUIRE an indy, but are made much easier with one.

Having said that, I also spent a year playing all kinds of hard modern bass rep on a stock single 72H. You can make anything work if you really want to, it's just down to how much you care about making bass trombone slide movements easier. Playing that single was a workout! And I've run into many passages that would be a workout on a dependent too.

[Matt K]

I do love a good single valve bass though. Having the option of going lighter in that specific way is great, especially if your jobs, like mine, are usually in symphonic orchestras. YMMV.

I am so glad you did, that single section you sold me is unbelievable.

[WGWTR180]

I'll say this about the dependent setup. Dave Taylor has played virtually everything ever written and still continues to perform all over the world using a dependent setup. I've never heard him complain about it.
Angus Butt sounds ridiculous on a dependent setup. Does he ever play independent-I honestly don't know as I'm only going on what I see.
As far as designs I'll get back on track later-I've played/tried almost everything to date except for some euro makers.
Off to work soon.

[BGuttman]

The history of the double valve bass is they started as an easy way to do the "E Pull", so it was built in F/flat E. This setup is good for the Bartok Gliss since you can start in b7 with two valves, switch to one, come to 1st, slide to b7, and add the 2nd valve.

Then we discovered that the 2nd valve in Eb made for a lot more choices and put low C and low B in more accessible positions.

Then we discovered that an independent with F and either G or Gb (giving Eb or D) had even more possibilities.

Older players have grown up using all of these options.
Younger players started on Independent and never tried anything else.

Any of these setups can work.

Location of the valves doesn't seem to make a big difference in sound, although the direction of rotor rotation can make a difference in feel.

[Matt K]

Younger players started on Independent and never tried anything else.

I don't think that's quite true. There are still a lot of schools that have single valve or dependent basses. My HS had an Elkhart... I want to say 62 single valve that I played on, then the university I went to had a YBL622, then I bought a Duo Gravis b/c that's what I could afford. Both the HS and university both have those same instruments now.

My experience is not all that unique (I guess I'm not exactly young anymore but I'm not old either ). I know at least a few younger players who are on dependents, although they would realistically prefer independent, but the prices on pre-owned dependents is so much more favorable. It's a much smaller market for new horns, and if you "only" had 8k to drop on a horn, you wouldn't necessarily want to buy a dependent since they're typically the same price new if - as noted by those here - you really thought you needed the independent for the additional technical facility it provided.

[Thrawn22]

Facts are facts, sorry guys. Again, you can like whatever tuning you want (singles, anyone?), and obviously people make it work of all ages. But not many.

It's not what you say it's how you say it. But you've always been like that. Little quips with very little respect for anyone who's been there ahead of you.

Yes. Speaking in absolutes is what gets burgers inedible.

[Elow]

Geez, the bashing needs to be toned down. Just straight uncalled for personal attacks. Agree to disagree and leave it

[ZacharyThornton]

This forum is only useful to sell things anymore. Soon it won’t even be good for that.

[fwbassbone]

I learned on a dependent back in the mid 70's. I switched to independent in the mid 80's. Then back to dependent. Then back to independent. You get the idea. I was recently told by a much younger player that I should learn more indy technique. I asked him why and he had no answer so there you go. Play what feels best and gets the job done. BTW, I now have 3 bass trombones, 2 indys and a single.

[Aznguyy]

This forum is only useful to sell things anymore. Soon it won’t even be good for that.

Truth…

[Mertelstein]

Another +1 for the DG here. I absolutely adore it. Sure it's not appropriate for many settings, but it really is as others have said its own animal and when it's the right horn, there is really nothing like it. I love the original trigger set-up too - it just "works" for me.

That said: on Aidan's point about dependents (or deepys - I liked that!) being more or less obsolete, I'd suggest this is another case of the UK and the US being divided by a common language...in the military bands in the UK, from casual observation, dependents are by far more prevalent than independents, so they do still have life in one small part of the world!

[Mertelstein]

I drive a manual car. I love it, it's a blast to drive and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. That doesn't change the fact that the market has decided manuals are obsolete and a vanishingly small portion of vehicles sold today are manual.

Hah - re my previous comment, this is another one of the UK vs US situation! If you want an automatic in the UK you'd best be paying over the odds. Manuals still rule the roost over there!

[WGWTR180]

Geez, the bashing needs to be toned down. Just straight uncalled for personal attacks. Agree to disagree and leave it

Then people need to stay on topic and stop being completely disrespectful. It's obvious if you read the posts.

[harrisonreed]

This forum is only useful to sell things anymore. Soon it won’t even be good for that.

I mean .... This forum has never been TTF. There used to be lots of working pros on that forum. The language and fighting used to be higher, too. Worse than it has ever been here.

You sure you're not confusing this forum with TTF? This one never had what TTF had, from the getgo, including the genuinely bad fights and derogatory language.

This forum is a tame kitten by comparison.

[Dennis]

Another +1 for the DG here. I absolutely adore it. Sure it's not appropriate for many settings, but it really is as others have said its own animal and when it's the right horn, there is really nothing like it. I love the original trigger set-up too - it just "works" for me.

That said: on Aidan's point about dependents (or deepys - I liked that!) being more or less obsolete, I'd suggest this is another case of the UK and the US being divided by a common language...in the military bands in the UK, from casual observation, dependents are by far more prevalent than independents, so they do still have life in one small part of the world!

I don't know many settings where a DG would be clearly inappropriate while a Conn/Bach/Edwards/Shires /Rath/M&W/Thein double would be clearly appropriate. DGs have been played in every setting. It's a matter of player and approach.

In a world where resources were unconstrained, I'd have at least 3 basses. I'd have an in-line, because in the solo lit, the brass band lit, and the brass quintet lit the technical facility wins. I'd also have a dependent, because even a short neckpipe can that can be tapered helps with intonation and response. In most of the wind band and orchestral lit the technical facility isn't necessary. We just don't see parts that look like they were snatch'd from a Kopprasch etude or somewhere in Arban's. Finally, I'd have an old-style tenor-bass (single), like a Bach 45/46 or a King Symphony 2B or the Conn equivalent, for the once-in-a-lifetime things where someone calls me to play Milhaud's Creation of the World, or L'Histoire du Soldat, or the Octet, or even some 'lighter' orchestral rep (like Beethoven 5, if the section is downsizing, or Sibelius 7 and I'm going 'big' on the first part).

But resources are constrained, and this is my avocation rather than my profession. So I currently have two basses (both indies) and I really need to get rid of one, because it's a great instrument that deserves to be played by someone who will care for it. If I can only have one bass, it's going to be a double and it's going to be an indie. If someone calls me for one of the once-in-a-lifetime things, I'll do it on my Shires tenor or maybe on the Bach 36.

[Matt K]

Harrison is 100% spot on. I've read through I think everything and I don't see anything here that is personal attack other than the possibly offhanded topic about burnt burgers I don't really see any extreme opinions here either. At worst, an anecdotal observation that people who play dependents seem to skew older, which, if anything... the people mentioned here are people like Doug Yeo and Dave Taylor. I find it utterly impossible to think that comparing a group to the two of those people is anything other than an extreme positive. The respect for the two of them extends way beyond the low brass world.

If there is something that we should consider adding to the TOS, I'm all ears and anyone is welcome to open a meta ticket. I'm typically reasonably good at putting myself in other peoples' shoes and I just don't see anything here that would make me offended.

Regarding the utility of the forum: sometimes there's... just nothing to talk about. Maybe we'll get to a point where everything has been talked about. I don't see that as losing it's utility. I see that as having exhausted everything worth talking about and not filling the void with retreads. Unlike other places, this is globally indexed and archived for future posterity in a much more consumable format than other locations (including the old list serve, obviously TBF, Facebook groups, which are inaccessible, defunct, locked behind a portal, etc).


Back to the topic at hand:

Finally, I'd have an old-style tenor-bass (single), like a Bach 46 or a King 5B or the Conn equivalent, for the once-in-a-lifetime things where someone calls me to play Milhaud's Creation of the World, or L'Histoire du Soldat

I've actually played Creation twice But it was well over 10 years ago... I why would you want a small bass for that? Am I mis-remembering the part? If anything, my recollection would be that maybe even something a little smaller than a large bore would be appropriate given it's tessitura and that you're the only bone but... like I said it's been awhile

[Dennis]

Back to the topic at hand:

Finally, I'd have an old-style tenor-bass (single), like a Bach 46 or a King 5B or the Conn equivalent, for the once-in-a-lifetime things where someone calls me to play Milhaud's Creation of the World, or L'Histoire du Soldat

I've actually played Creation twice But it was well over 10 years ago... I why would you want a small bass for that? Am I mis-remembering the part? If anything, my recollection would be that maybe even something a little smaller than a large bore would be appropriate given it's tessitura and that you're the only bone but... like I said it's been awhile

I've done Creation once. I'd love to do it again. It's one of those pieces that you have to have an F-attachment for. Milhaud wrote some glisses that are easily do-able with a valve and impossible to even fake credibly without one. When I played it, I did it on a 36B because it was what I had--and honestly that (or maybe a 3BF) is a great choice for the part. But it's a little ahistorical. Milhaud knew what he was doing, and so I have to assume that he had a tenor-bass in mind for the part.

It's like doing the Octet: a modern howitzer isn't what Stravinsky had in his ear, and frankly a modern C trumpet isn't a sound he would have heard, either. Small-bore C, please and a tenor-bass. A 78H or 36 (no B) on the tenor 'bone. Good luck finding an "A" trumpet. It's a great piece of music, and it sounds wonderful with the brass quartet on modern instruments. But if you're trying to be HIP about it...look back to more appropriate instruments. Flute, clarinet, and bassoon designs were pretty well dialed in by the 1920s so our woodwind friends don't have the What is HIP? issue for that period.

[Burgerbob]

Geez, the bashing needs to be toned down. Just straight uncalled for personal attacks. Agree to disagree and leave it

Then people need to stay on topic and stop being completely disrespectful. It's obvious if you read the posts.

Cite one spot where that's true.

[WGWTR180]

Then people need to stay on topic and stop being completely disrespectful. It's obvious if you read the posts.

Cite one spot where that's true.

Not going there again. Others have backed me up.

[Burgerbob]

Cite one spot where that's true.

Not going there again. Others have backed me up.

I'm sorry, Bill, but not good enough. I'll admit I strayed us off topic (including this reply, sorry Erik), but I have not been disrespectful to "those who came before me" at any point here. Please let me know where I did.

[AtomicClock]

I have not been disrespectful to "those who came before me" at any point here. Please let me know where I did.

I've reread this thread several times. I can't find it. I'm very confused by the argument.

[tbonesullivan]

I guess as a sidebar would be whether there is a real benefit from a horn that can be tuned in both Bb/F/Eb and Bb/F/D. I have heard that in some cases certain players in the commercial / jazz side of things actually might prefer the Eb tuning with both valves engaged. I do have that option on one of my horns, but almost always keep it in Bb/F/D configuration, as I really don't want to learn yet another set of positions.

[Matt K]

I've done Creation once. I'd love to do it again. It's one of those pieces that you have to have an F-attachment for. Milhaud wrote some glisses that are easily do-able with a valve and impossible to even fake credibly without one. When I played it, I did it on a 36B because it was what I had--and honestly that (or maybe a 3BF) is a great choice for the part. But it's a little ahistorical. Milhaud knew what he was doing, and so I have to assume that he had a tenor-bass in mind for the part.

That makes sense. I think I did it on a medium bore once and a large bore the other time, but it's been way too long to remember with any degree of specificity. APologies though, I'm taking this far afield. I have questions but I should probably make them elsewhere

I guess as a sidebar would be whether there is a real benefit from a horn that can be tuned in both Bb/F/Eb and Bb/F/D. I have heard that in some cases certain players in the commercial / jazz side of things actually might prefer the Eb tuning with both valves engaged. I do have that option on one of my horns, but almost always keep it in Bb/F/D configuration, as I really don't want to learn yet another set of positions.

I have such an instrument (mine is independent, so Bb/F/G/Eb or Bb/F/Gb/D and technically I can pull both TS. I can't remember if it's Bb/E or Bb/bE/bF or whatever, but if I pull both tuning slides out I can get a convincing Db in almost first but obviously lose out on the utility of using them, well, independently for the most part.

What you are describing also circles around so-called "Bollinger" tuning, which technically wasn't invented by him to the best of my knowledge but he is obviously somewhat famous for using the tuning system b/c of a book he wrote on it. The basic idea is you want to keep your hand somewhere in the middle of the slide as much as possible for technical reasons, and tuning it a particular way (close to Bb/F/G/Eb or Bb/F/Eb) allows you to do so, though at the expense of having to farther out on the slide for other notes.

I keep mine with the G tuning b/c I like it better for using it also in the staff. Ironically, either way I almost never play either Eb or D with both triggers. I find pressing both at the same time to be more challenging ergonomically than merely moving the slide, so I do so when needed which is typically for Db and lower. If I were truly optimizing for below the staff, I would almost rather have some other kind of tuning like Bb/F/Db so that C and B natural would be in a closer position.

[WGWTR180]

[WGWTR180]

So the title of this thread is Best Dependent Bass design.
1. SS Duo Gravis prototype #4: I owned this for quite a few years and made a decent amount of money with it. I loved many things about it and the valve section blew nicely. But in the end I sold it because I developed some left hand issues holding the instrument. So taking in the complete design valves good, ergonomics not good.

2. Various Elkhart 62Hs: In all honesty I never owned a good one BUT have played some really good ones. Conns blow differently than most other makers in general but I found that the 62H required some effort on my part to sound good on. I played a friend's once that I loved but when he started thinning the herd I could not afford to buy it. So is it the design I didn't get along with or was it me?? I heard a video a few years back with Angus Butt killing it on a 62H. I think he plays on another dependent setup now.

3. XL Dependent: I owned this for 2 weeks. Blew okay-didn't think the wrap was very attractive but I bought it cheap and was hoping to leave it at my show. In the end it was too damn heavy to deal with. Valve design/wrap meh. Overall design with the 10 pound bell-epic fail.

4. Rath R9: Maybe one of the most unique looking wraps but it sure works. Never really used the Hagmann valves but I really liked the rotary valves. Maybe should've kept that one-oh well.

5. M&W Dependent instrument: Probably, in my opinion, the most beautiful and well thought out wrap design. Matthew has put a lot of thought into his instruments designs and it shows. For me I also think his rotary valves are the best out there. I am disappointed in myself that I sold the instrument as I just couldn't find the right pipe to use. In the end I had Matthew do a valve conversion on one of my Holton bass trombones(185). I played a friends who had an inline version made and decided to go with that thinking "well that worked for him so I'll just do the same." For the record I really like the instrument and use it quite a bit. I'm sure I would've loved the dependent version as well.

6. Holton TR 180s: Owned many, sold many. I find the wrap design fine and with a nicely made Minick D slide I think it looks very nice. The blow? Well on some very good and others not so much. The undersized valves and smaller valve tubing compared to Bach tubing can be off-putting to many. I have several that are just setup perfectly and each of mine has the early 9.5 inch bell. No 10 inch bells for me thanks. Another side note: I just had Pete Edwards make a new set of valve cores for my oldest 180. Wow! Completely amazed by how the single and double valve registers speak with changing the quality of the original sound. Couldn't be happier.

One that I've seen but not played. The early dependent Edwards design with the Thayer valves looks like it would be difficult to hold. Maybe ask Dave Taylor. I know he's using a Butler bell at the moment to make it lighter to hold. Another that I tried was an early Gary Greenhoe Elkhart 62H conversion that was amazing! I was actually trying it for a few days when the owner texted me and said he wanted it back and that he was not selling it anymore. Bummer-great design and blow! There are many others that I just haven't tried and now I'm out of money. Who wouldn't be?