Trombone’s limited audience appeal for solo career

[Retrobone]

The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.

[tbdana]

The quality of having a musical sound; having a certain level of sensitivity to the rhythm, beat, and meaning of music.

[robcat2075]

The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.

Music is organized sound that is compelling (meaning you want to keep listening), so... "musicality" is the perceived qualities of those sound and organization elements that make them compelling.

It could be the difference in tone between a beginner band trombone player and an accomplished performer.

it could be the difference in style between Charles Wuorinen and Anton Bruckner.

It could be the difference in volume between a death metal band and a string quartet.

It is a judgement call by the listener.

[Kbiggs]

The word "musicality" appears frequently in some of the posts on this thread. It's fascinating to me how one would define the word actually. I've been a prof player and teacher for decades, but I don't actually have a good definition myself.

Music is organized sound that is compelling (meaning you want to keep listening), so... "musicality" is the perceived qualities of those sound and organization elements that make them compelling.

It could be the difference in tone between a beginner band trombone player and an accomplished performer.

it could be the difference in style between Charles Wuorinen and Anton Bruckner.

It could be the difference in volume between a death metal band and a string quartet.

It is a judgement call by the listener.

[Emphasis added.]

I understand the argument here, but it leaves out much from our judgment of music, let alone our experience of it.

Say that “compelling” is on one end of a spectrum of musical styles that measure how much or little one likes a piece of music. The spectrum (a Likert scale) would then have gradations along the way such as compelling, interesting, ambivalent, disinteresting, dislike, and despise. You could even break things up and have a separate scale to account for different parameters of music: pitch, rhythm, timbre, volume, style, etc. (assuming they know what those parameters mean). While something like this would clarify what someone likes or dislikes about a piece of music, it ultimately gives us no more information than they didn’t like a piece of music.

What kinds of things make a Mozart aria or symphonic movement more appealing to the general audience than, say, a Sousa march or a Herbert Clarke or Arthur Pryor solo? Both kinds of music share harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic similarities.

Surely, we can say more about what makes a piece of music compelling, or even interesting.

[robcat2075]

Surely, we can say more about what makes a piece of music compelling, or even interesting.

Surely we can, but it won't be dispositive.

The more we refine our definitions, the more we exclude something that may have a valid claim in some circumstance. I recognize that.


BTW, "compelling" is my reactionary amendment to the music theory class definition of music as no more than "organized sound".

"Compelling" is my assertion that music isn't merely output by composers and performers, it is a transaction with the audience.

[LeTromboniste]

With regards to "musicality":

Not a big fan of that term, although I use it for lack of any better word. Maybe actually "artistry" would be better. In the question of distinguishing craft from artistry one might define craft as the technical ability (for example, in our case, intonation, control and reliability of articulation, precision of the slide, flexibility, ability to play fast notes, ease in different registers, sense of time, etc.) and artistry as the conceptualization or imagination of complex, original artistic (in our case, musical) ideas. In other words the craft is how well you're able to execute the ideas. On the other hand, it is unavoidable that the craft will also limit the artistry, because one tends to generate ideas within the scope of what they can and do regularly execute. But the less we can let the artistry be limited by the craft, and the more we can adapt and expand the craft to follow our artistic ideas, the better. Artistry is of course much harder to judge than craft because it's subjective and about ideas where the other is more objective and about technical abilities. Improving one's craft is ultimately about improving physical abilities, while improving one's artistry is about broadening the mindset and imagination.

In other words, one can be an extremely proficient and technical impeccable player but only ever use that high-level craft to execute mundane and not particularly complex, imaginative or touching artistic ideas, just as one might have great ideas but lack the craft to execute them. The baseline is that one's craft needs to be at least good enough to execute their artistic ideas. But say someone's musical ideas are 9/10, and require a 6/10 craft, and their craft is exactly that 6/10. They are likely to be more appealing as a musician than someone whose craft is 9/10 but who only ever expresses musical ideas that are 6/10, no matter what level of craft these ideas require.



With regards to people not being interested in classical music, well I don't know about that. I just played a 9PM concert on a Tuesday night in a church, of singers, gambas and trombones performing fairly obscure 400 year-old music. No big name performers. It was a 300-seat church. There were 300 people sitting, and about half as many again standing in the crammed aisles and the back of the church. It was absolutely packed. So yeah, we might not fill football stadiums, but I'm not ready to rule it out as something irrelevant that nobody wants to hear.

[Retrobone]

Thanks Max for your thoughts. Musicality is a word that falls short for me, and I stopped using it in lessons. Artistry... yes a good term, but again it isn't easy to quantify "artistry" either. Or even musicianship. I thought a lot about it over the years. Especially after I had a long association with musicians from the early music scene. Having been an orchestral musician for so long, I know that I don't often get the chance to display artistry as a soloist. Boleros and Tuba Mirums come around, but not every week! Mostly our artistry is confined to good rhythm, balance, and tuning. And then I'm looking for the meaning of the composer. And as we well know... many conductors don't get far past reminding one of exactly what's in front of us, or sticking up the left hand before you even play. Despite the hindrances, there can be great artistry in the orchestral nuts and bolts! Playing some of the great original sackbut repertoire really did present me with an artistic challenge, though. Then comes the musicianship... playing in different clefs and tuning systems. Or balancing with singers and violinists. Phrasing like string artists or vocal artists.

[robcat2075]

See if you can guess what all these composers have in common, relevant to our discussion.

Bach
Handel
Mozart
Haydn
Beethoven
Mendelssohn
Goldmark
Brahms
Dvorak
Britten
Elgar
Franck
Saint-Saens
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
Strauss
Nielson
Glazunov
Kabalevsky
Khachaturian
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Bartok
Barber

The answer can be seen by highlighting the text in this box:

They have all written at least one violin concerto and have written zero trombone concertos. Even the weakest of them is probably stronger than any trombone concerto.

Although they all knew of the trombone and used it in at least one work, that was the limit of their interest

[robcat2075]

and then there's this guy.

Rimsky-Korsakov

Rimsky-Korsakov is the only standard-repertoire composer to write a trombone concerto but never write a violin concerto

[JohnL]

and then there's this guy.

Rimsky-Korsakov

He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.

[Kbiggs]

I’m not sure what these lists say about the trombone other than Bach et al didn’t write a concerto for the instrument. Yes, they could have, but they didn’t. The same could be said of Rimsky-Korsakov and his lack of writing a violin concerto: he could have written one, but he didn’t.

Perhaps the mood never struck them… or they didn’t feel moved or compelled to write a piece for the instrument… or it wasn’t a viable solo instrument for what they wanted to say… or they didn’t know a trombone player capable of playing what they wanted to write for the instrument… or they never received a commission… or…

I think it’s important to acknowledge the relatively small number of solo compositions for trombone in the Baroque to post-Romantic periods compared to the violin. That’s an accident of history, as much as anything. I think it’s also fair to say that the few compositions that do exist aren’t as well known and, by some accounts, aren’t as compelling to an audience as a similar violin piece—although that’s likely due to greater familiarity with the violin literature and the comparative lack of familiarity with trombone literature.

I also think it’s important not to set up one instrument as a straw man next to another. (Now that’s a picture I’d like to see!)

[robcat2075]

I’m not sure what these lists say about the trombone other than Bach et al didn’t write a concerto for the instrument.

To me, the list makes painfully clear how much the era of great composers passed us by.

For 200+ years great composers practically grew on trees but they never ventured to write a trombone concerto. For 200+ years they found new ways to write violin concertos and yet they never found a first way to do that for trombone.

Perhaps the mood never struck them… or they didn’t feel moved or compelled to write a piece for the instrument… or it wasn’t a viable solo instrument for what they wanted to say… or they didn’t know a trombone player capable of playing what they wanted to write for the instrument… or they never received a commission… or…

Really. This is astonishingly bad luck. Just turn one of those conditions around for just one of those composers and we'd have a trombone concerto. It's like rolling the dice and somehow always coming up with zero.


My list omits the numerous virtuoso player-composers like Corelli, Paganini and Wienawski who saw a need for new violin repertoire and created some maybe-not-great-but-pretty-good works. Nothing like that seems to have happened among trombone players.

Now the era of great composers is over and we're left with a repertoire of also-rans, pranks, and weird performance art.

I think it’s important to acknowledge the relatively small number of solo compositions for trombone in the Baroque to post-Romantic periods compared to the violin.

I appreciate the efforts of the Paris Conservatoire to commission all those annual Concours pieces. I'm guessing that hearing their work played 20 times in one day dissuaded the composers from any further trombone involvement.

Rimsky-Korsakov

He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.

It's like he was trying to miss the boat twice!

[AtomicClock]

Well, we DO have a Mozart and a Haydn...if you don't look too closely.
Maybe we should seek out composers with famous surnames, and commission pieces from them!

[WilliamLang]

The amount of "new music" hate and the normalization of it is off-putting. There are plenty of classical style composers out there. There's even a John Williams Tuba Concerto that is pretty great! But if I just posted all the time about hating Jazz, and how Jazz is bad now, and the era of Jazz is over, and Jazz is just a joke, etc... I don't think it'd be received well, and rightfully so.

There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything, but there's still people writing in the styles that you wish. The constant hate on what is considered "new music" is tiring, especially for those of us that love it and play it for audiences that also enjoy it.

Just please consider leaving out the constant snide comments. Everyone gets it by now.

[JohnL]

To me, the list makes painfully clear how much the era of great composers passed us by.

They wrote what sold. Violin, piano, and (occasionally) cello. A major work for any other instrument is rare and, I suspect, frequently written either as a commission or for a personal friend who played that instrument.

He also originally wrote his concerto for trombone and military band, not orchestra.

It's like he was trying to miss the boat twice!

Please tell me that wasn't intended as a pun. When he wrote the concerto, Rimsky-Korsakov was the Inspector of Naval Bands, a civilian post within the Russian Navy (he had previously been a naval officer). He wrote it for a friend, a Marine officer named Leonov.

[Macbone1]

If not already mentioned, you may want to research listening stats on YouTube, not just Spotify.

The electric guitar has obviously taken over popular music since the fifties. Just think how long ago that is. In the big band era, trumpets, trombones, clarinets and saxophones sold faster than the factories could make them.

The main appeal of the guitar is how the player's face is unencumbered by a mouthpiece, so there's more freedom of expression and a stronger stage presence. It also frees the player to sing of course.
Guitar can be harmonic, percussive and melodic and is more quickly learned and simpler to teach than wind instruments.

[harrisonreed]

The amount of "new music" hate and the normalization of it is off-putting. There are plenty of classical style composers out there. There's even a John Williams Tuba Concerto that is pretty great! But if I just posted all the time about hating Jazz, and how Jazz is bad now, and the era of Jazz is over, and Jazz is just a joke, etc... I don't think it'd be received well, and rightfully so.

There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything, but there's still people writing in the styles that you wish. The constant hate on what is considered "new music" is tiring, especially for those of us that love it and play it for audiences that also enjoy it.

Just please consider leaving out the constant snide comments. Everyone gets it by now.

These pieces do not generally seem to last long beyond the premiere, though. Especially "new" works that are not written in a "romantic" style. It isn't good to just bash all new music, but it's worthwhile to look into why composers (who don't write movie music like Howard Shore or John Williams) haven't been able to get mass appeal even in the classical world.

There might be something to the fact that Mozart wrote operas and the fact that his music was somewhat popular and increased in popularity after his death. That was the movie music of his day.

[WilliamLang]

The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.

[harrisonreed]

The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.

This is true... And perhaps there were more composers in the past (though I doubt this, considering how many more people are on the planet now), but it seems like a higher rate of pieces from before the year 1900 have been accumulated into the public consciousness and "survived" than those written after 1900.

Why is that? It must be more complex than just the music itself, standing alone. I'm sure there is a strong social and even "political" (thinking it orchestra dynamics) reason behind it.

But perhaps serious composers who are not writing for movies (a commercial endeavor, where success really matters) could try harder to think about the audience. This might also be why the trombone takes on so many experimental works from new composers.

This is a great documentary that goes through almost the whole process of getting new music for the trombone. The composer was, I think, supposed to be the hero and the star of it, but ... It is worth a watch. So fascinating to see how this music, and a big part of our modern repertoire, comes into being. The trombonist gives 1000% to attempting to make the price a success:

[HappyAmateur]

It's the Law of the Instrument: if the only tool you have is a hammer, it's easy to start seeing everything as a nails. We focus a lot on fullness and broadness and power, and perfect evenness and playing the longest possible phrasing with the most equally sustained airflow, and absolute consistency of tone and articulations, to the point where a lot of musicality is beaten out of us, without us even realising it, until we're left with a fairly mundane and surface-level musicality. Even our equipment choice pushes us in that direction.

Late to the party here, but I'll give a small anecdote that this comment made me think about.

For a couple years now, I've been in a community classical choir which is about the most musically advanced thing I've ever done in my life (hence my user name). For our showcases, our director has to cobble together an orchestra full of semi-pro musicians. Last year, the trombones ruined it for us. They were way too loud and proud. This year, the piece called for 3 trombones, but our director chose none. Without the trombones, the concert went great (for our level).

Yes, this likely wouldn't have been a problem for us if we could afford high-quality trombonists. But it speaks to what you are describing. The world isn't full of high-quality musicians. It's full of mediocrity and amateurs. And I'd argue that trombone is less forgiving than many other instruments when it's played by someone who isn't skilled. And so we don't have a market for high-quality trombone soloists because we don't have a market for low-quality solo gigs. People are happy to hear a random mediocre guitarist at open-mic night at the bar. No one wants to hear a trombone. It scales from there.

All that said, I'd argue that all instruments that can only play a single melodic line will struggle with carving solo/"front-person" careers. Can you name some awesome clarinet or euphonium soloists? I think even highly successful instrumental soloists like Yo Yo Ma or the 90's ubiquitous sax soloist Kenny G are overwhelming exceptions and not the rule. For any instrument - the chances of being a marquee act on your own are vastly smaller than they are for vocalists.

And as a (mediocre amateur) vocalist, I think the only reason vocalists took that place in society was because of the invention of the microphone. Prior to the microphone it took a whole lot of training and skill to be a solo singer and project louder than an ensemble (or more so - a full orchestra). You can also cheat like crazy with a microphone... my range extends greatly when I'm mic'ed up in church instead of in my classical chorus. There are a lot of male front-men singing brilliant falsetto or deep, raspy alto female leads that would sound a whole lot worse if they weren't mic-ed.

(And on a related note, I think electrification of music in general contributed to the decline of band/orchestra - it used to be the only way you get really loud music; now you can just turn your amp up to 11).

[CheeseTray]

This may be a little off the main topic but I believe its applicable.

The reduction in appeal of classical music (and serious jazz) has as much or more to do with the broad changes in culture at large, and consumption of music as it does with trends in composition. While it is certainly true that many composers’ move toward ever-increasing complexity alienated large parts of their collective audiences, changing times and tastes have limited them too. The factors are many - here are a few:

1. The rise of recordings and instantaneous access to music via mass media; people can now sit at home (or anywhere) and repeatedly listen to what they enjoy and are already most comfortable with. Additionally, mass media/internet access has enabled the proliferation of pop culture into everyday life to an unprecedented degree. Much of pop music is woefully “LCD.” Its success is dependent upon quick accessibility and an effective hook; a song needs to “stick” immediately or it doesn’t survive commercially. Its assimilation requires no patience or familiarization time to appreciate, unlike the patience necessary for classical music or jazz.

2. All of this overly simple, instantly accessible music saturating the environment has had a profoundly chilling effect on the average persons’ “patient” listening skills (and listening attention span). Listeners lose interest way too fast (think of how quickly you may start advancing through an 8-10 minute YouTube video) to give more complex music a chance.

3. In the mid 20th century, as audiences aged, many listeners progressed toward more sophisticated musical experiences. For example, people who grew up with the 40s-50s crooners later bought tickets to the symphony as they aged. This tendency changed with those who grew up with rock… now they would prefer to see the Stones perform in their 80s or attend Roots of Rock-n-Roll shows, or even tribute band shows. (Hence orchestras’ often cringey attempts to create “relevant, accessible” pop experiences.)

4. In simple, empirical terms there are also so many more listening options available. Many average listeners, having so much easily accessible music all around them, have no desire to expend the time or effort (or possess the intellectual curiosity) to expand their listening horizons with any semblance of intentionality.

5. Erosion (or elimination) of government support for “fine art” music, plus its elimination of tax advantages for corporations to support the arts, has forced art music into an unending struggle for visibility, resources, and stability (at least in the US). This is not an environment that fosters growth or attracts aspiring talent.

6. Serious music requires serious money to support it. Tickets aren’t cheap, because highly trained musicians need to be fairly compensated and performance venues are expensive to run/rent. Many casual listeners find the attendance cost too much; particularly if they can access recordings allowing them to prioritize which live concert experiences earn their limited disposable income dollars; these performances are not the kind of spectacular experiences that pop shows deliver.

This post is way too long (sorry). The bottom line is that, though many of the points made, and much of the discussion in this thread is on point, ultimately our increasing changing cultural milieu (plus the rapid pace of change) is a huge factor in the state of affairs as well. If the mainstream of sophisticated art music is struggling against the tide, it isn’t reasonable to expect a narrower sub-category of it to have much of a chance.

…my long-winded .02

[Kbiggs]

The vast majority of music ever written did not last long beyond it's premiere.

This says a lot about the ephemeral nature of music.

It also reflects human’s doggedness in their attempts to hold onto something and present it as a pinnacle, an exemplar. It’s as if, for every trombone concerto ever written, there’s someone out there saying, “Well, that was nice, but it’s no Tchaikovsky or Brahms Violin Concerto!” Rubbish.

Humans have always been—and until we become different creatures, always will be—fascinated by the perception of greatness, however you define it. We allow that perception of greatness to influence our choices for good and ill. At one time, the cornetto (German zink) was one of the most highly-praised instruments due to its facility and similarity to the human voice. It didn’t last, though: the violin replaced it. Unless you make an effort to find and listen to some early music, or unless you are a professional and carve out a life devoted to bringing that music back to life (thank you, Maximillien, Tim Dowling, and others here on TC), you wouldn’t know about the cornetto except as “some weird thing that people used to play music on that no one listens to anymore.”

We now have the ability to listen to music—and see art—from a long time ago. Music from 500 years ago can be easily found through playlists. Prehistoric cave art is easily found on the internet. When we see cave drawings, how many of us say, either to ourselves or to others, “Well, that’s nice, but it’s no Rembrandt!” To do so is to claim that anachronistic thinking makes sense, that judging the past by our present sensibilities is logical and proper. Again: rubbish.

Moussa’s Concerto for Trombone viewtopic.php?p=273065&hilit=Moussa#p273065 might not make it on playlists (albums? mix tapes? CDs?) of “Favorite Pieces of the Early 20th Century,” and that’s okay. It will probably make it on a list of Difficult Trombone Concertos, or Difficult Pieces for Trombone in Minimalist Style. Enjoy it while it’s here.

[VJOFan]

“Perception of Greatness”

I thought about this when a substitute teacher saw me this week and asked if I was keeping up with my music. She was moved by a little ditty I played at the school Christmas assembly.

She wasn’t the only one I guess. I clipped just enough of this so it’s obvious the crowd reaction is not to what they are hearing. Scrub to the end to hear the cheers that maybe are about more than my playing.

We were playing for the students and staff of my school this past Christmas. We are all part of the same crew so they hear quality that’s not there and respond as if it was great.

There are probably lots of players getting positive feedback all over the place. It just takes getting an audience connected to the musicians and music. So there is no trombone equivalent to Lang Lang. There are plenty of trombone recitals and players making at least extra coin playing solos in various guises.

We can’t control the international music market. We can cultivate our own music gardens.

[robcat2075]

There is so much music out there in any style you choose! You don't have to like everything...

I'm afraid I don't get to choose what the symphony orchestra plays. Perhaps you do?

My only choice is to go or not go.

In thirty years of concert-going the various new music and "world premieres" I've heard have been uniformly awful. Memorable only for their tediousness and lamentable for their lack of musical interest.

And I can venture that my personal assessment of them seems to have been borne out because NONE of them have ever resurfaced for return engagements.

It's not just me.

[WilliamLang]

It'd be like going to a restaurant where you know you don't like the food, getting it every time, complaining about it ceaselessly, and then blaming them as well. Maybe not going is the answer if you're determined to have a bad time. There's plenty of classics only concerts of the music you deem "good" that you could attend as well.

[TomRiker]

Trombone Shorty is a good musician. So is Rita Payes - one doesn't take from the other.

Perhaps, but my beef is that the students I hear locally have chosen to blast away like Shorty as opposed to playing with finess and style like Rita.

Then again, VHS was chosen over Beta by the unwashed masses. I shouldn't be surprised.

I get the frustration with music students preferring loud and brassy over nuanced. But... I look back at the disco Maynard albums I listened to in high school and cringe. The Miles Davis albums not so much. Are the Maynard albums bad? I don't think we can just say they're bad. There is good playing on them. Probably a good idea here and there, and most importantly they made me feel something as a kid and that made me want to play! They were fun albums! I think we get into trouble when we categorize music as good music and bad music. It is for sure a value judgement and that isn't how most people look at music. I mean I realize people have likes or dislikes but I don't think most people listen to something they don't like and think "wow what simple solo. Nothing interesting harmonically at all."

There are also things that can make a performer more popular that are valid that aren't just about how they play. Those things are often tied to how much fun audiences have listening to the music. I haven't seen Rita live, but I've been watching her NPR tiny desk concert, and I have seen Trombone Shorty live. In fact I saw him at a blues festival in the middle of the day on Friday slot. Early sets on giant festival stages are tough. The crowd isn't as big or as engaged as they will be at 9pm. Many people are just there for the headliner, and there is not much intimacy with audience compared to a club gig. Trombone Shorty and HIS BAND lit up that stage. People started dancing and having fun! (there's that "fun" word again). Music that offers nothing more than a good time can be valid music too. In fact I think both Trombone Shorty and Glen Miller fit that pattern. Decent players, great band leaders, great marketers/self promoters, great at working an audience. Rita has some of that, but at the end of the day if I was in my 20's and wanted to party and dance I'd go with Trombone Shorty. Having said that, If I was still in my thirties and trying to set the mood for a romantic dinner there is no contest. Rita wins.

At the end of the day I think there are two answers to the op's question. One is that trombone players often don't think about what general audiences want out of a listening or concert experience. I think we tend to try to be great musicians rather than entertaining ones. I mean this as a generality. Clearly there are exceptions. The other reason is that in our effort to be great musicians we tend to be conservative. By that I mean we tend to try to preserve musical genres and forms that used to be popular. We try to play the concertos the "right" way. To build "proper" jazz solos. Human beings get used to stuff real quickly. We evolved to. We want new and different. Even when we want familiar we want it to be a little different. Otherwise music wouldn't evolve. That new but different is what made bebop popular originally. The getting used to things and moving on is why most people who hate jazz today are usually thinking of bebop. What we rarely want as a broad population is excellence in art. Especially if it's challenging our aesthetics. Even if you look at trombone classical music the "best" pieces aren't always the most popular. I don't think the David is the best concerto written for trombone. It is one of the most listenable ones. If I had to perform a concerto for an audience and the only thing I knew about them was that they weren't an audience of classical music listeners or trombonists I'd pick the David.

Think of it like this. Of all the Star Trek movies with the original series cast I think Star Trek II the Wrath Of Khan is objectively the best movie, but if I just want to be entertained I'm going to put on Star Trek IV, which is probably the silliest of those movies but maybe also the most fun. I think trombonists undervalue fun in their music. Again generalities. Plenty of exceptions. Many of them are the ones with the most listens

[tbdana]

I think there's a lot of important truth in Tom Riker's post. We should all read it a couple of times to soak it all in.

Except that shit about Star Trek. The Voyage Home grossed the least of any of the Star Trek pictures. When it comes to Trek, Tom clearly doesn't know his phaser from his photon torpedo.

[tromboneVan]

Riker gets it

[TomRiker]

Except that shit about Star Trek. The Voyage Home grossed the least of any of the Star Trek pictures. When it comes to Trek, Tom clearly doesn't know his phaser from his photon torpedo.

Maybe opening weekend? Looks like it's the second highest grossing after The Motion Picture which is... not good.

The global box office earnings for the original Star Trek
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $339.84 million.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $203.05 million.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): $152.78 million.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $223.32 million.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $52.23 million.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $109.68 million.
Star Trek Generations (1994): $126.89 million.
Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $147.98 million.
Star Trek Insurrection (1998): $77.90 million.
Star Trek Nemesis (2002): $9.53 million.

[tbdana]

LOL! I had no idea, man, I was just yanking your chain!

[LetItSlide]

I've generally felt that the trombone's greatest strength is as an ensemble instrument, in a trombone section.

Or in a horn section. Not that I don’t love a good trombone section. Just saying that a trumpet-sax-trombone section can be very appealing.

[TomRiker]

LOL! I had no idea, man, I was just yanking your chain!

I didn't either, but you got me curious!