Real bass trombones

[Chatname]

Are any instrument makers building real bass trombones today?
I feel that our terminology regarding trombone voices is wrong: there is no such thing as a modern bass trombone. What we call a bass trombone is a Bb tenor with slightly larger bore and sometimes an extra valve. A Bb trombone is a tenor whatever the bore size, just like a trombone in Eb (or F) is an alto whether it is a straight one in .485 or a valved one in .547. One could even make an alto with .562 bore and two valves, it would still be an alto. When Jay Friedman plays a Bach 45 on
first it’s called a tenor, if Vernon would use it for a third part in a Brahms symphony it would be called a bass trombone…
A real bass trombone is an instrument tuned in F or G. A contra bass trombone is in low Bb.
The modern so called bass trombone is only a function. Players are specializing in playing low parts on a tenor trombone with an extra valve, just like there are lots of French horn players specializing on low horn with bigger mouthpieces and equipment.
We have brought the alto back, I don’t understand why we don’t bring the bass trombone back as well. I think a modern symphony trombone section should alternate between using three different sized tenors (like now) and the classical ATB set up for the right repertoire: an alto, a tenor and a relatively narrow bored bass trombone, with or without a valve attachment.
Now to my question: are there any good real bass trombones being made today? Trombones made smaller in bore than the so-called contras, tuned in F or G. If not, why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?

[Burgerbob]

Quick question: why? I'm not sure what we're missing with the current setup.

[Chatname]

I don’t know and I don’t think we can without having explored the territory. But bringing the alto back for the right repertoire was an improvement, I’m thinking we should explore the possibilities with small F basses as well.
The possibilities to create different sounds and expressions as players and sections. And then there’s the historical curiosity: why not try and create sounds like some of the major composers would have had in mind?

[Burgerbob]

I've got two things:

I'm not sure alto has been dead for the time that matters, the last 100+ years. Bach and Conn (and many German makes) have been making altos that whole time. No one has been making F basses.

Alto also makes a few things a little bit easier. F bass does not.

[slipmo]

I built myself a F/C bass last year and its wonderful for romantic repertoire, but certainly not a daily driver

[CalgaryTbone]

While I don't have an issue with any experimenting that anyone wants to do for the sake of trying to find interesting colors from the trombone section sound, are you also going to suggest that the rest of the orchestra will have to use historical reproductions of their instruments? There are groups that perform on historical instruments, and everyone in the ensemble is playing "authentic" instruments, and the conductors are taking tempos and interpretations that historians have put forward as what the composer may have intended (rather than what has become tradition). I'm not sure that changing the trombones makes sense without the entire orchestra playing on period instruments. To be fair, we do often scale down a bit to lighter instruments for certain rep. here, but taking on too many vastly different instruments can add a lot to the workload. It may not be a worthwhile use of time if the trombones don't blend with their brass colleagues that are playing on modern instruments.

Jim Scott

[HermanGerman]

And then there’s the historical curiosity: why not try and create sounds like some of the major composers would have had in mind?

YES!!!!!!
Stop playing these oversized trombones (.547) with that hornlike muffled sound (Big Mac with extra cheese) and go back to the trombones the composers of the 19th and most of the 20th century had in mind and ear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finesse, grace!
A medium bore horn for 1. and 2. trombone! Or even better, a plain German trombone..

[Chatname]

I am maybe I bit childish in my opposition to the term bass trombone being used for the modern big 3rd tenor trombone. Of course that’s no big deal, only words. However I do find it strange that being employed as a tenor I would get extra paid if I would sit on the 3rd part playing let’s say my Bach 42 with a 50 slide because suddenly my equipment is magically transformed from a tenor into a bass trombone and I’m now doubling on a different instrument... Maybe it’s time we get the words right? All Bb trombones are tenors. I don’t mind the extra pay, though…
Regarding the F/G trombones, I think it would be exciting to explore. Don’t know how successful it would be, however the success of the modern alto should be inspiring. I personally don’t use the alto primarily for ease, rather for the difference in sound. Most alto parts can be equally easy on small bore tenors, but the sound is different.
I don’t think all instruments of the orchestra need to be historical instruments, however the trend to sometimes incorporate classic small timpanies, natural trumpets and also alto trombone and as mentioned above small/medium bore tenors is very exciting!
Noah, that F/C bass looks fantastic!!

[LeTromboniste]

So, "bass trombone" has pretty much always designated a function rather than a length of instruments, there's nothing new there. There were Bb-length trombones called bass trombone long before there were valves.

The David concertino was written for "bass trombone". A bass trombone in Bb, with no valve, and roughly the size of a modern tenor. At the time, it was considered a bass trombone, despite longer trombones still being in use.

So I think we need to make peace with the nomenclature.

That being said, I totally agree that it would be really cool to have long F and Eb basses with modern construction and with a modern bass trombone bore and bell size (i.e. not "period instruments" and also not contrabass).

[Chatname]

Weren’t they called tenor-bass posaune?
Anyway, good points and you phrase it very well; a modern bass in between a period F instrument and a contrabass!

[Matt K]

There is quite a historical precedent for having three “tenors”, particularly in France. I don’t know off te top of my head when that practice started there but it isn’t necessarily a contemporary development to have a homogenous section.

Beyond that, I’m not sure if I would characterize medium and large bores as having less finesse or being muffled anymore than I’d say small horns are edgy and bright. They simply provide more ease of access to particular tonal palettes. It isn’t like there’s a lack of high quality small bores available and at this point at least the majority of professional classical players own one either because it’s the instrument they started out on or they do commercial music as well which frequently does call for smaller bores. If it’s merely a matter of picking one case when you leave the house instead of another, it would seem there’s perhaps a reason for it. And it isn’t necessarily volume or else I suspect big bands would be packed with 547 horns too.

[Rob1662]

I thought this thread might be discussing the IMO oversized equipment being used by many players these days. A lot of the time sounding like slide euphoniums or small tubas and totally inappropriate for the repertoire they are playing. Thank god for the likes of Bob Hughes who are encouraging young players back to the "real" bass trombone sound..

[elmsandr]

Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?

Care to dance about architecture a little? (If you don't get this reference, don't worry it isn't important)

That said, I do want to have a double slide made to put my straight Bach 45 into Eb.... I think that could be a very fun horn to play. Would it be fun to also use with my other bell sections and maybe re-tune those valves? Probably. Would it make anything easier? Almost certainly not. Is there any good reason this should ever leave my house? Absolutely not.

Still want to do it just for kicks. Learn something about long basses in the process.

Curious about that one-off long F bass that Yamaha made for Doug Yeo. Pretty horn, but I wonder if they made new tapers for it. I think optimizing those tuning slide bows and flares to be distinct, useful, yet not a contra could be very time consuming and expensive. Doubt that will happen without a market.

Cheers,
Andy

[LeTromboniste]

Weren’t they called tenor-bass posaune?
Anyway, good points and you phrase it very well; a modern bass in between a period F instrument and a contrabass!

In 19th century Germany they were sometimes called "Bassposaune" and "Tenorbassposaune" interchangeably.

Nemetz in Vienna in the 1820s describes a Bb instrument as an "alto, tenor and bass trombone", indicating only the mouthpiece is different, before he goes on to describe the other lower pitched bass trombones. Earlier, many older instruments were altered in the 18th century to adapt them to evolving taste, practices and performing pitches, and some of them are formerly long bass trombones that were cut down to Bb length, probably still to be used as basses since the tenors of the time were not yet as large as that.

Earlier still, at the very beginning the trombone (originally only in the size we would call tenor) was most likely invented as a bass instrument.

Nomenclature is messy, and it's certainly not just the trombones. The French C tuba, a variation on the bass saxhorn, was pitched one step higher than the baritone saxhorn in Bb, but had 6 valves and a full bass tuba range. Nobody would call that a tenor horn.

[LIBrassCo]

Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?

This.

[afugate]

I wonder about the challenges of getting slide work done on these long slides.
--Andy in OKC

[Chatname]

Do we listen to music with our ears, or with a tape measure?

This.

With ears certainly, with tape measurements occasionally, but also with imagination. I imagine there are still sounds to be explored.
The Eb trombone is different both in sound and in measurement. A small F bass would be too. I imagine ATB set ups could be an exciting development. I don’t know however, because having worked professionally for 30+ years I’ve never had a small F bass beside me. Maybe it would be nice even for my ears?

[BGuttman]

About 30 years ago I tried an Alexander bass in F with a C valve. Handle on the slide. It was not considered a contra at the time. I liked it, but the price was above what I could afford.

Up until about 50 years ago the British Brass Bands were using very small bore tenors and a G bass (also very small bore). I own a G bass, but it doesn't leave the house. It won't blend with any other section. It's 0.525" bore, so it's smaller than most of the tenors even in Community Band.

Chatname, I have a friend with three instruments from the early 20th Century: Tenor Horn, Baritone Horn, and Bass Horn. All 3 have exactly the same construction, are the same length, and differ only in the bore. The Bass Horn was about the bore size of a modern Euphonium. The tenor horn was about the bore size of a modern 0.509". The baritone horn was in between.

There is a Historic Brass article that describes instruments of the 19th Century orchestra as all being the same length but different bores. They were called Alto, Tenor, and Bass.

If you are really set on a longer bass trombone, see if you can find that Alexander model. Be prepared to spend a lot of time learning F fingerings and an even longer time learning the C valve. But don't expect to win any auditions on it.

[TomRiker]

I find this subject fascinating. My understanding is that the lower trombone parts in orchestras were written for a variety of instruments depending on the era and the location of the composer. So in that regard I'm sure thinking of the third trombone part as a function rather than a voice is the right approach.

Having said that I'm not a professional musician. I play for fun. For me part of the fun is being creative. Applying an interpretation to the music. To that end I don't really care what the composer originally intended. And since I'm an amateur I don't necessarily have to. I know there are plenty of places an amateur can play where that would be the expectation, but in terms of my own pursuits, learning solo literature for example, I just don't particularly care about what the composers intent was. I care what my intent is.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about the voice side of the various trombone sizes. I recently purchased a used Bach 42BO with a dual bore Edwards .547/.562 slide. What many here think of as a super tenor. I think of it as having a baritone (rather than tenor or bass) voice. I've really enjoyed the approach. It's kind of my perfect Bach cello suites horn. I do think you could extend this train of thought to third trombone parts in terms of musicianship . Evaluate what's happening musically in terms of how the third (or fourth) part fits in with the orchestra and with the section. Optionally you could then choose an instrument based on that evaluation. I think lots of players do this already. Like moving to a smaller instrument on third for Haydn for example. Even if you don't change instruments thinking about what voice you are trying to inhabit may be helpful.

As a side note I think an f bass with a bore in between the traditional f/g basses and the modern contrabass could be interesting. Something like .562 or .547/.562. I think most f contras are .578 but to be honest I'm not sure. Are any of them .562?

[harrisonreed]

Are any instrument makers building real bass trombones today?
I feel that our terminology regarding trombone voices is wrong: there is no such thing as a modern bass trombone. What we call a bass trombone is a Bb tenor with slightly larger bore and sometimes an extra valve. A Bb trombone is a tenor whatever the bore size, just like a trombone in Eb (or F) is an alto whether it is a straight one in .485 or a valved one in .547. One could even make an alto with .562 bore and two valves, it would still be an alto. When Jay Friedman plays a Bach 45 on
first it’s called a tenor, if Vernon would use it for a third part in a Brahms symphony it would be called a bass trombone…
A real bass trombone is an instrument tuned in F or G. A contra bass trombone is in low Bb.
The modern so called bass trombone is only a function. Players are specializing in playing low parts on a tenor trombone with an extra valve, just like there are lots of French horn players specializing on low horn with bigger mouthpieces and equipment.
We have brought the alto back, I don’t understand why we don’t bring the bass trombone back as well. I think a modern symphony trombone section should alternate between using three different sized tenors (like now) and the classical ATB set up for the right repertoire: an alto, a tenor and a relatively narrow bored bass trombone, with or without a valve attachment.
Now to my question: are there any good real bass trombones being made today? Trombones made smaller in bore than the so-called contras, tuned in F or G. If not, why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?

A real bass trombone .... is tuned to F .... and G. And maybe Gb. And Eb, or D. And Bb. If your hangup simply that the tubing isn't all in the hand slide? Tut Tut.

They already solved it for you.

Bore size aside, trombonists in the past, who played on those old "real basses" chose to stop playing them, and put the extra tubing in the bell section. That goes for the Germans, too, Herman.

[elmsandr]

With ears certainly, with tape measurements occasionally, but also with imagination. I imagine there are still sounds to be explored.
The Eb trombone is different both in sound and in measurement. A small F bass would be too. I imagine ATB set ups could be an exciting development. I don’t know however, because having worked professionally for 30+ years I’ve never had a small F bass beside me. Maybe it would be nice even for my ears?

I am curious what type of sound you want to look for... something that is smaller than the current sound of the large Bb; but happens to sound larger than _____?

I think my Eb 45 would be an interesting niche there, but I don't know if that is a real place to inhabit... yet.

Or are you really just pining for the G basses to come out of retirement?
Andy

[harrisonreed]

The sound would differ as a function of the different slide technique required to play it. Otherwise, unless the bell is changing or the bore is changing too, the sound would be mostly the same. It's mostly a straight pipe with a few bends in it.

[Matt K]

Making a valve on a contemporary bass be reversible would "solve" that particular problem and be a lot cheaper!

One thing to bear in mind is that the tubing in the valve is frequently larger than the slide. So bass "F" attachment tubing is already .593.

[robcat2075]

39 years ago I auditioned at the University of North Texas with my fake Bb-F bass trombone and when I finished playing they said, "You could play an important role here as a model of the true bass trombone sound."

With that tiny bit of validation I'm going to say that "bass trombone" is a sound one cultivates rather than an arrangement of tubing.

Everything that people believe and expect about bass trombone sound today is almost entirely the result of 100+ years of Bb-F instrument playing and I'm doubtful that anyone is going to come up with a demonstration of F bass trombone playing that proves it superior for all the things bass trombones do.

...why are there so few so-called bass trombonists trying to bring back the real bass trombone, 40-50 years after the principals brought the alto back to the symphony orchestras?

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nudge it aside.

[LeTromboniste]

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.

Does it have to be one or the other though?

The alto can't do everything the tenor does, and it's not use to play all 1st trombone parts. Still I don't know many people who argue the alto should never be used. If anything it's used to cover more parts now that it was at the time the music was composed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting all 3rd/bass trombone parts should be played on a long bass, so I don't think "superior for all the things" is needed. Just more interesting musically for certain parts could be enough.

The sound would differ as a function of the different slide technique required to play it. Otherwise, unless the bell is changing or the bore is changing too, the sound would be mostly the same. It's mostly a straight pipe with a few bends in it.

I am currently developing a new model of bass sackbut that has the back loop removable and can play in G, F, D, or low C, at a variety of different pitches. And let me tell you, without changing the slide, or any part of the conical portion of the instrument, it plays and feels vastly different when it's set up to D versus G. Not inherently better or worse, just very different. Better for some things, worse for others.

An F or Eb bass with modern proportions would be recognisable as a bass trombone of course, but still offer a very different sound and feel. If I still played a lot of modern trombone, there are many things for which I would definitely not want to play that kind of long bass, but for some repertoire it would be really nice (like Noah said above, by no means a daily driver). If I ever auditioned for and won a modern bass trombone position, that would honestly be one of my first purchases.

[elmsandr]

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.

I think even Truly-actually-superior-for-a-few-things would be enough to get a bunch made.

I do not really have an imagined view of what I think it will do better; and I want to make one!

Cheers,
Andy

[robcat2075]

Superior-for-all-the-things is what it would take to displace the modern bass trombone or even nude it aside.

Does it have to be one or the other though?

The OP lamented that only a few players were doing the F bass trombone thing. He wants lots of people playing it... because it's the real bass trombone.

It doesn't sound like he is satisfied with partial adoption.

My answer is to why partial, special case adoption is all he'll get and the Bb-F is the 600-pound gorilla that will not be moved.

[Chatname]

About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while. Same thing with the bass, but it seems we got stuck with the bass term. Maybe we should skip the names of the functions and just call them Bb or Eb or F trombones. Like trumpet players do, with the exception of piccolo (and bass)… Obviously this is not happening, we will continue using these names, which is fine by me. I’m just thinking out loud a little bit here…
About the actual instrument, I’m more serious. I would find it interesting if the bass trombonists I play with would occasionally try to use a small F or G trombone, and therefore I was curious about whether there any being made. I would not expect every 3rd player in the world to convert, and certainly not every week. Like I wrote earlier: alternating between an all tenor set up and an ATB set up. So as often as the Eb trombone is used; five or six weeks a year..? Anyway, this won’t happen I know. The instruments are set in stone due to the development described by others in this thread. The Bb section is superior for most uses. For all? Maybe. Or maybe not. We won’t know unless we’re willing to experiment with curious minds and open ears. And tape measurements, of course!

[harrisonreed]

You don't even play the "real" trombone then. That would be something with a bore smaller than a trumpet, and a bell smaller than one too. And you would need to use olive oil on your slide. When would it end?

We live in a modern world. The way we do things has evolved. If it needs to evolve to something different, it will. It already is.

You keep talking about the "real" bass trombone, and anything in Bb being a tenor. You must've played a bass trombone next to a tenor at some point -- they are not the same thing.

[LeTromboniste]

About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while. Same thing with the bass, but it seems we got stuck with the bass term.

Except, first trombone parts before the 19th century were a lot of the time not actually played on Eb instruments, or called alto.
Out of the old vocal doubling tradition, German 19th century editors slapped the terms "Altposaune", "Tenorposaune" and "Bassposaune" on basically everything, whether or not it was actually written for "true" ATB trombones or 3 Bb instruments (or 2 Bb and something else), including in cases where manuscripts or older editions used terminology like "Trombone primo", "Trombone secondo". The Bb trombone didn't take over, it was always by far the most used, and not used only for 2nd trombone parts.

[harrisonreed]

And Russian music too. If it says alto, except in a few cases, it means Bb trombone.

[Dennis]

About the nomenclature: Maybe using terms like alto, tenor and bass is a creating some confusion. Until the first decades of the nineteenth century the first parts were mostly played by Eb/F trombones and called the alto part. When the Bb trombone took over some composers would still use the alto name (e.g. Bruckner) for a while.

I'd be interested in seeing a source for this claim about first parts. In the early 17th C Syntagma Musicum Praetorius illustrated the alto, tenor, and bass trombones. He referred to the tenor as the gemeine rechte posaune (lit., common right trombone, I suspect common proper trombone is probably more idiomatic English), suggesting that this was the instrument composers could expect to have available. That in turn suggests that in writing for multiple trombones, composers should expect the parts to be played on that commonly available instrument.

It's also true (as Maximilien pointed out above) that late 18th and 19th Bb trombones described as "bass trombones" are commonplaces in museums. Some of those large bore-large bell instruments are reported to play the privileged tones pretty well. Apparently it was as true then as it is now that composers don't care much what the player has to do as long as the job gets done.

[sirisobhakya]

Why hark back to something when the current thing can do the job better and easier?

At the end of the day, the musicians just want to play music well, and the audiences just want to listen to good music. There is no point in playing an “authentic” instrument from practical point of view. Anything that makes the job more difficult just falls obsolete. It is like saying “why don’t we save data on a ‘real’ floppy disk instead of just clicking on floppy disk save icon?”

It would be interesting and fun from time to time indeed, but not the way everyone wants to do it everyday.

[BGuttman]

Chatname, I believe you are ignoring the reason we went to the current style of bass trombone.

Instruments in G, F, or Eb have VERY long slides. You can't reach all the positions with just an arm -- you need some kind of extension. Usually it's a handle. The handle is cumbersome to manipulate. When it became possible to just add the additional tube length using a "quartventil" the new technology effectively replaced the old nearly overnight. You still use the wide bore for response in the lower range, but you get effectively 10 positions between the Bb and F sides of the instrument.

[Finetales]

First of all, here's the most modern F bass trombone out there, other than Noah's. It's not a contra as listed, it's a real F bass with some Hagmanns put on it. And it's for sale!

(Please don't buy it. I must accrue the funds to purchase it. I called dibs.)

Anyway...

Trombones named the way they are currently is the best because their name describes their FUNCTION, not their taxonomically-correct-according-to-tubing-length designation. A Bb tenor trombone's money register is the tenor register. Sure it can play a lot more than that (especially with a valve), but its most characteristic sound and role comes in the tenor range. A modern Bb bass trombone's money register is not the tenor register. Sure, it can play in there just fine...having heard Jim Markey give a recital playing lovely lyrical solos with numerous high Dbs, I can attest that it can play in the tenor register more than fine! But that's not where the instrument shines the most. Its more characteristic sound and function is in the bass register. So, we call it a bass trombone because it fulfills the bass role. That's why we can also have both F bass and F contrabass trombones. One works best in the vocal bass register (focused around the bass clef staff) like the Bb bass trombone, and the other...definitely does not.

The Bb contrabass trombone is the weirdest one, because the Bb contrabass trombone does nothing well.

[hornbuilder]

Years ago, in another life, I modified a Boosey and Hawkes G bass trombone (the straight, satin silver plated one, with the handle on the slide) into an F bass, by adding a loop of tubing to the gooseneck. I used that horn for performances of several Mozart operas, as well as some Gluck pieces. The first trombone played a Bach 39, and the second used a Conn 6H or Bach 36.

The thing that was most noticeable was the way those horns could be played at "decent" volumes, without getting The Hand from the conductor. It was so nice to be able to actually "play" without that overbearing dread constantly looming over you.

Also the blend of the sound with the rest of the orchestra,especially the woodwinds, was extraordinary!! Having my sound meld with the oboe (who was sitting immediately in front of me) was truly special!!

The other consideration for the use of different length instruments is the harmonic structure of the sounds we make. One example (in the opposite direction, but equally relevant) is the F major chord on Humperdinck Hansel and Gretel. The 1st trombone has the 3rd of the chord, A on the top of the bass staff. That chord was notoriously difficult to play in tune. Bass on low F, second on second space C, and the A above. I suggested the first player play the A in 6th. BINGO! A settled, in tune chord that RANG like crazy!!

Why?

Because we were all playing notes on the same harmonic series. Compared to the same A being played in 2nd position gives a clash of the F harmonic series vs the A harmonic series (C against C# harmonic!!)

Now, the same applies to a bass in F. The reason why an instrument in F sounds different is because the notes you're playing are set in a different harmonic structure to that same note on a Bb instrument. Plus, you don't get into the pedal register until the low F, so you're playing a "long tube low note" much lower into the tessitura, versus a "short tube pedal" of a Bb horn.

I believe that some composer understood this differentiation (well, I can dream can't I!?!? ) and using different pitch instruments "where appropriate" can make a huge difference to the sonic complexity of the overall. Playing Puccini on an F instrument sounds very different to the same part on a Bb instrument. And it isn't just because a contra is bigger!

I made an "F bass" using a Bach 50BGL bell, double valves, and a long .562 slide. It provided the same added depth of sound to the trombone section, (even though it was smaller in bore and bell shape than the Glassl F contra I had been using) because the notes being played were relatively higher on a long tube pitch center, compared to the relatively lower notes on a short tube pitch center of a standard Bb bass trombone.

I'm not advocating using F pitched instruments for everything. We need to approach it from an "informed perspective", but I believe the results can be very rewarding!

[LeTromboniste]

Why hark back to something when the current thing can do the job better and easier?

A modern-proportioned and modern-construction long-bass wouldn't be "harking" back, because it was never a thing. And the point is precisely that it would do certain things better and easier than the current thing.

[robcat2075]

This is the sort of thing that, if you really want it and the rest of us just don't get it, it falls on you to lead the charge and show us how mistaken we are.

Lamenting that someone else doesn't do it won't advance your cause much.

[modelerdc]

Pre Eastman-Shires made a longer slide and extension to the tuning slide to convert a B flat bass to an F bass. I've never had the chance to play this, but it was reported to play pretty well. Once you have the longer slide a dedicated F bass bell and J tuning branch could make a step-by-step conversion to a pretty good F bass possible.

As Matt above says, playing some notes in some chords in certain positions can work better. But this raised an interesting question. Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series? Perhaps some readers with a strobe could test this. I think this is important because if the harmonics are the same, then the effect of the alternative harmonic series is really just pitch, but if the harmonics aren't the same, then that raises other questions.

[harrisonreed]

This is the sort of thing that, if you really want it and the rest of us just don't get it, it falls on you to lead the charge and show us how mistaken we are.

Lamenting that someone else doesn't do it won't advance your cause much.

[ithinknot]

Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series?

Of course. You don't even need to worry about the (straightforward) physics. They don't sound the same, and there's your answer.

[robcat2075]

Does playing the same note on a different harmonic series, such as F in 1sot or 6th, or D in first or 4th, does this result in a different structure to the overtone series?

Of course. You don't even need to worry about the (straightforward) physics. They don't sound the same, and there's your answer.

The more common physics explanation for why they sound different is that the cylindrical/conical ratio of the tubing is different.

[hornbuilder]

No.

The pitch we hear when playing a brass instrument is not just made up of that fundamental pitch. The harmonic series above that pitch also sound. This is the thing that gives the instrument sound "interest". It is more or less prevalent depending on dynamic to some extent, too, as well as bell construction and material choice. A softer dynamic reduces the prevalence of the upper over tones. A louder dynamic increases the upper over tones. It is the balance of those overtones in the sound that dictate if we perceive the sound as "bright" or "dark".

To answer modelerdc.

Play a first position F, then play all the harmonic notes above that note (F, Bb, D, F, AB, Bb, C, D etc) then play the same note in 6th and do the same. (F, A, C, Eb, etc) you can see immediately that the 2 sounds are made up very differently, harmonically.

So to extrapolate further.

A low Bb played in 1st position on a Bb tenor resonates the Bb harmonic series above that low Bb pitch. The same pitch played on V-3 actually resonates on the harmonic series of Eb, and has a lower set of harmonics on a much longer tube than the "same" note on the shorter Bb tube.

Further. A pedal Bb on Bb bass trombone resonates on a short tube Bb harmonic series. That same pitch on an F contra is actually resonating on a tube length twice as long as the Bb bass pedal note.

The cylindrical/conical ratio is not the cause here. It is the resonating harmonic tube length.

[LeoInFL]

pardon me if this is a silly question, but what would happen if you paired a single-valve Edwards bass bell section with the "Bartok" double slide that apparently puts the assembled horn in F? Just wondering if this would result in a contrabass?

Here's the link to the straight bass horn in F:


From the comments section of the video, it sounds like Edwards offers (once offered?) the slide.

[StefanHaller]

Play a first position F, then play all the harmonic notes above that note (F, Bb, D, F, AB, Bb, C, D etc) then play the same note in 6th and do the same. (F, A, C, Eb, etc) you can see immediately that the 2 sounds are made up very differently, harmonically.

So to extrapolate further.

A low Bb played in 1st position on a Bb tenor resonates the Bb harmonic series above that low Bb pitch. The same pitch played on V-3 actually resonates on the harmonic series of Eb, and has a lower set of harmonics on a much longer tube than the "same" note on the shorter Bb tube.

You are confusing two different things here: 1. the harmonic series that the note you are playing is a part of, and what other notes you can play on that series, 2. the harmonic spectrum of the note you are playing itself. The two are independent.

If you play a note, that note is always the root of its overtone series. If you play that Humperdinck A, its overtone series will always be A, A, E, A, C# etc., no matter whether you play it on 2nd or 6th position. Yes, the two notes sound different, but that's only because the relative strength of the overtones is different; the structure of the overtone series is the same.

Which means that it's hard to explain why the chord sounds so much better one way than the other. I believe you that it was the case, it's just not obvious to me why.

[hornbuilder]

That is not correct.

You can map out the harmonic series of any note you are playing by playing the notes that are available in that position.

So, the middle A being referenced in second position has a harmonic series of A, starting 2octaves above the pedal A fundamental, of A (root), C#, E, A, etc.
. That same pitch played in 6th position has the harmonic structure of F available in 6th position. A (root) C, Eb, F, etc. ie the F harmonic structure

[hornbuilder]

A certain length of tube can only produce one set of harmonics. If that wasn't the case, we could play any note in any position. That is why we can play alternate positions. The "alternate" note has to be a note available on the harmonic series of that particular slide position.

[StefanHaller]

You can map out the harmonic series of any note you are playing by playing the notes that are available in that position.

So, the middle A being referenced in second position has a harmonic series make up of A (root), C#, E, A, etc. That same pitch played in 6th position has the harmonic structure available in 6th position. A (root) C, Eb, F, etc.

You are mistaken about this, it's not true, and it doesn't make sense physically.

And you can actually hear it. With just a little bit of practice you can easily hear the strongest overtones (especially if you play with a bright tone), usually the fifth and the third. If I play a trigger D I can easily hear the A and the F# above it. (It's not always easy to tell in which octave I'm hearing them.) By your theory I shouldn't be able to hear those, but rather G and B; but that's not what you hear.

Same with your Humperdinck A; if you listen carefully you can easily hear the E and C# in both cases.

Guess I'll have to record some notes and post some spectograms if you don't believe this.

[elmsandr]

There are a few horns out there built as long basses...

The Conn Eb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkG4zOeG0Sw

The original listing is gone, but you can see some of an old Holton here:

https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?t=14333

s-l1600.jpg

Would love to try something similar, but have other projects first.

Cheers,
Andy

[hornbuilder]

With all due respect Steffan, I have studied the acoustics and physics of musical instruments quite extensively, as part of my training to design and make instruments. I'm not guessing or speculating in any regard here.