Why have bass trombones gotten to be so big and heavy and ugly ?

[blast]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

[tbdana]

It has been the trend in tenor and bass trombones for many years, now. Bigger is cooler, I guess. Bigger bores, bigger bells, bigger horns, more tubing, more valves, etc. I like the purity of a straight tenor trombone. It's like a fork. A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.

I also like the single-valve bass trombones. Still tremendously useful.

[mikerspencer]

I thought designs had coalesed around a 9.5" bell, which is smaller than some were.

[elmsandr]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

What compared to what?

For example, I don’t think a Rath is big and ugly compared to a 62H.

I think many open wraps that extend way beyond the bell envelope are kinda ugly; but many times they do have a lighter, open sweeping look than say a 70s closed wrap Bach with a C extension.

Cheers,
Andy

[Burgerbob]

Me. I lobbied the big makers to do exactly that when I was a kid. The plan is working quite nicely!

[TomInME]

I thought designs had coalesed around a 9.5" bell, which is smaller than some were.

The flare measurement is largely (not completely) cosmetic. I believe weight and throat are much more influencial.

I think the design trends for bass bones are part of a cycle where composers/arrangers write more-challenging stuff in the lower register, players look for equipment that makes it easier, composers go further, equipment goes further, etc. An increase in doublers may also be part of this, relying on equipment to assist. And amateur composers (and some "pros") who don't understand the instrument will write half-step trills between pedal b-flat and b.

I'm not a fan of how this has altered the average/median color, but I have tried a modern design and it was a LOT easier in the trigger register. And I have changed my own setup and don't have the color I used to have (although I have tried not to stray very far), but my low B is on a different planet now compared to where it was. And I need it a lot more often than I did 30 years ago.

I wonder if the audition process is also a contributor due to a bias towards accuracy over color, but there's more than enough blame to go around already. Bigger tenors are part of the arms race too.

[hyperbolica]

I wish there were an in-between option. A big tenor with two valves and a bass-ish bell. Something that could play an (in tune) low C at FF without sounding like ripping sheet metal, but still sounds like a trombone. The ugly part I think is due to the open wraps. They don't have to be D tuning, maybe Eb tuning is enough, while keeping the weight down a little.

I'm getting Sweeney to put a 2nd valve on my 1480, which should be a really nice small bass. With the reduced bore, smaller bell flare but bass throat, it should be compact enough to not be heavy, but we'll see about ugly. Sweeney isn't known for making ugly stuff.

[TomInME]

Try this with a 1.5G and a dependent rotor setup from the 80's:

[hyperbolica]

1.5g and dependents isn't abnormal, really. People don't choose it, but there's a fair bit of it out there.

Looks like Matt Niess on lead.

[Finetales]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Is that really true though? A Conn Fuchs or a New York Bach 50B is as big as most modern basses in every dimension save for not having a second valve. We settled on a .562" slide, 9.5" bell, and roughly Fuchs/50-sized throat and have stayed there for the most part, because it works.

Double axial basses can be pretty huge and heavy, but they are the extreme...there are still many players playing on middle of the road rotor setups.

I think a much bigger difference is mouthpiece size, as not too many people are still using 2Gs and 1.5Gs. As TomInME referred to, I think a big part of that is the kind of bass trombone parts people are expected to play these days. But even so, the 1.25 size is only a bit bigger than a 1.5 and is a common size - I use a 1-1/4GM myself. Once again, there are people at the extremes using Griego .25s and contra pieces and no leadpipes, but that sort of thing isn't as popular as it was in the '80s and '90s. We flirted with going bigger/heavier then, and most people realized that it was too much.

If bass trombones really got significantly larger in recent years, then I wouldn't be able to use my 72H every day and blend with modern basses and large tenors just fine. But I do! Bass trombones still sound and play like bass trombones, even the big ones. In the past few decades, I think sound concept has seen a much bigger shift than equipment.

Me. I lobbied the big makers to do exactly that when I was a kid. The plan is working quite nicely!

I KNEW IT

[tbonesullivan]

I think the design trends for bass bones are part of a cycle where composers/arrangers write more-challenging stuff in the lower register, players look for equipment that makes it easier, composers go further, equipment goes further, etc. An increase in doublers may also be part of this, relying on equipment to assist. And amateur composers (and some "pros") who don't understand the instrument will write half-step trills between pedal b-flat and b.

I'm not a fan of how this has altered the average/median color, but I have tried a modern design and it was a LOT easier in the trigger register. And I have changed my own setup and don't have the color I used to have (although I have tried not to stray very far), but my low B is on a different planet now compared to where it was. And I need it a lot more often than I did 30 years ago.

Sometimes I feel like composers have the bass trombone confused with the Cimbasso, and you end up with lines that are completely not idiomatic to the trombone and fail to bring out the strengths of the instrument. And of course there are many who look at the Bass Trombone more as being a texture or 'menacing loud noise".

I also think that honestly the bass trombone is an ergonomic nightmare due to having both a slide and two valves. Parts that involve swapping freely between the bG, F, and D sides of the horn are a recipe for carpal tunnel syndrome, and not really what the idea was when the trombone was designed: an instrument that changes pitch by use of a slide. Now in some cases it's a valve instrument with a slide assist for tuning. It would probably be better to just design a handle and linkage that supports the entire hand and utilizes the first and second fingers, rather than the thumb and finger arrangement.

[MahlerMusic]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Funny, I see the opposite. In the 90's/early 2000's I saw 10.5" Bach bells and D or C second trigger only tuning. Now every thing is 9.5" and thin Bells. Still a mix of single and Dual bore. I even see rotors still going strong.

[Schultz]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Which specific instrument(s) influenced this thought?
If anything i feel more the trend is heading more towards (or back) to the vintage horns of old.

[BGuttman]

When the tenor players switched to 0.547" (13.9 mm) bore instruments it became necessary for the 3rd layer to upsize as well. Chris, you may remember the Bad Old Days when the tenor players were all sub .500" (12.7 mm) and a nice .525" G/D bass was fine. Nowadays a .525" G/D is much smaller in bore than the tenors.
'

[GabrielRice]

Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens

What dimension are you thinking of? As a community, at least here in US, we have backed off from the extremely heavy bells of the nineties, and the expectation to play a dual bore slide is not as strong as it once was.

That said, I've found that I don't like the oversized dimensions around the tuning slide that you find on Edwards and (one one side) Greenhoe bass trombones, as compared to the Bach I learned on and the Shires I played for years after. My instrument from Stephens is now back to that dimension after a couple of years on a Greenhoe Bach, and I'm happy for the easier blow.

[Posaunus]

Try this with a 1.5G and a dependent rotor setup from the 80's:

Recorded 3/19/16
Features Ben Patterson, trombone, Jon Barnes, trumpet

[blast]

Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens

What dimension are you thinking of? As a community, at least here in US, we have backed off from the extremely heavy bells of the nineties, and the expectation to play a dual bore slide is not as strong as it once was.

That said, I've found that I don't like the oversized dimensions around the tuning slide that you find on Edwards and (one one side) Greenhoe bass trombones, as compared to the Bach I learned on and the Shires I played for years after. My instrument from Stephens is now back to that dimension after a couple of years on a Greenhoe Bach, and I'm happy for the easier blow.

[elmsandr]

Wait, just to double check; was that modern bass TROMBONES or bass TROMBONISTS?

Because on the later… I guess guilty as charged?
Andy

[BGuttman]

Wait, just to double check; was that modern bass TROMBONES or bass TROMBONISTS?

Because on the later… I guess guilty as charged?
Andy

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[LetItSlide]

For my own personal tastes, I love a symphony trombone section with a BIG sound. Other listeners love it, too. The players put their “loadouts” together to satisfy that as they see fit. Other reasons drive them, of course, some of which I can’t relate to very well as the owner of just one bass trombone.

Within the more-or-less standard American bass trombone size of 9-1/2 or 10 inch bells, and bore sizes of .562 or .563, I think the main monster-looking attribute is the big axial valves.

[hornbuilder]

Oh Chris...I like how you drop a bomb here and then sit back to see what happens
.

The only thing missing from the original post was, "Now get off my lawn!"

[2bobone]

Leave it to "Blast" to stir up a whole bunch O' trouble !
I have an entirely different take on why bass trombones got bigger -- and bigger -- and bigger --- [You've got the idea !]. Imagine my consternation when the 1st & 2nd trombonists in the NSO showed up one morning at rehearsal with their Bach 42Bs outfitted with BASS TROMBONE SLIDES !! I was happily holding down the bass trombone chair with my beloved King Duo Gravis which balanced perfectly between the trombone and tuba chairs. All of a sudden, I'm expected to balance three tenors [tenor/basses] with my "weapon of choice", the Duo Gravis. We can all see how this situation simply wouldn't work unless I grew an additional set of lungs. Since that was an impossibility, I decided that if they upped their game by putting bass trombone slides on tenor trombones that I would simply move up a notch by buying a King 8B --- which I did. So --- on one hand I took it as a compliment that they choose to push into my territory because the Duo Gravis had such a great sound, but on the other hand I was upset because of the scenario with which I was presented. I always thought of them as "The Tubby Tenors". Make no mistake, we were all collegial and friendly but there was never a "meeting of the minds" about instrument choice, style or anything else that you could imagine to coalesce a section mentality. We all imagine that orchestral sections spend hours obsessing over details in order to burnish the section to a superior position. Disabuse yourself ! Perhaps the Chicago Symphony did ---- all praises to them !
Anyway ----- I blame it all on the tenor players being jealous of the gorgeous sound of a bass trombone in full bloom !! Let's see if "Blast" agrees --------.

[hornbuilder]

But lt50 slides on 42 bells don't sound anything like bass trombones. Even when Jay played the Bach 45 bell with the lt50 slide, he still sounded clean, clear and like a tenor trombone!!



But there absolutely are some .547 bore tenors, that almost sound like bass trombones, due to the bell weight and other construction features.

[2bobone]

"But lt50 slides on 42 bells don't sound anything like bass trombones."

I beg to differ !

[hornbuilder]

Did you watch the video?

[Posaunus]

Did you watch the video?

Bach & Courtois tenor trombones w/ 0.562" bore slides?

[hornbuilder]

No. Michael Mulcahy is playing a Bach 42G with a light 50 slide. Jurgen Van Reijn is playing a .547 Courtois. Neither of them sound like bass trombones. I would actually venture that, if anything, Mulcahy makes a clearer, "lighter" sound than Van Reijn. His sound is magnificent.

[2bobone]

"Did you watch the video" ?

Yes.

[hornbuilder]

Are you actually suggesting that Michael Mulcahy, one of the finest tenor trombonists in the world today, sounds like a bass Trombone?

[LIBrassCo]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Simple, it didn't.

[WGWTR180]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Simple, it didn't.

But some certainly have.

[pfrancis]

Does a Yamaha 613H count on this list of “beasts”? Osmun (HEAVY) trombone bells? If yes, then this is nothing new… in fact, I would lay it at the feet of players in the 80-90s. Not blaming them, just acknowledging that period as a time of bigger/wider/heavier across the board (Warren Deck and his HEAVY 2165 tuba, Lawson French horns, Monette trumpets etc). People make choices, almost always imperfect.

In fact I would suggest the trombone community is just behind the current trends. All of the above examples have been replaced with lighter and more responsive instruments (Meinl Weston 6450, Schmid horns, Bach revisions and Yamaha artist models (among others)).

[ghmerrill]

Just thinking....modern bass trombones are monsters...huge and heavy and ugly....how did that happen?????

Is that really true though?

I don't seem to see any actual weights being compared. I do recall that in the 1990s I had a Holton TR181. That horn was HEAVY!! And unwieldy -- to the point of being painful to play. This was 15 years prior to the development of the Edwards Bullet Brace and other ergonomic improvements and enhancements. To be fair, if you could hold the horn, you could blow down a wall with it, but holding it wasn't a pleasant experience.

More contemporary bass trombones I've tried recently (including Chinese models and clones, and American-made) are both lighter and ergonomically superior (though still requiring some work to make them truly "comfortable"). Not much of a statistical sample there, to be sure, but I'm not sure there's a distinct trend towards "huge and heavy" (I won't debate "ugly" vs. "pretty" ).

From what I can see, a Bach 50B3 weighs in at between 6 and 6.5 lbs., a Conn 62H at about 6.2 lbs, a Shires Q36GR at around 6.1 lbs., an Edwards B502-D at 4.8-5.0 lbs, a Thein Universal at around an average of 5.25 lbs. I can't find a really solid figure for that Holton TR-181, but estimates based on published data suggest about 11 lbs.

My Getzen (WITH mouthpiece, bullet brace, and counterweight!) weighs 6.2 lbs.

I'm not seeing much of a trend to heavier horns here. Does anyone have more, or more reliable, weight figures?

[hornbuilder]

Gary, your Holton had "terrible" ergonomics (they still do). Poor ergonomic design will make an instrument feel heavier/less comfortable to hold than an instrument that may be physically heavier, but has better ergonomics.

[Burgerbob]

In no world is a Holton 181 11 pounds. Most basses are around 5-6.

[ghmerrill]

In no world is a Holton 181 11 pounds. Most basses are around 5-6.

It does seem a bit over the line , and the estimates seem to be based on published weight of the case+horn combination. But I do wonder what the weight of one actually is. The 10" bell certainly didn't help the ergonomics. I notice the manufacturers seem universally loathe to publish weight figures for their instruments.

[WGWTR180]

Folks it's been pointed out many times before but only a few get it. It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight. A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off. It's all about design too and not just weight.

[ghmerrill]

It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight.

Well, up to a point.

A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off.

In terms of the way I have things set up at the moment, I'd much rather play my bass than my '47 Olds Standard.

[WGWTR180]

It's more about BALANCE than it is about actual weight.

Well, up to a point.

A 5lb bass trombone can be far more difficult to hold than say an 8lb bass trombone IF the balance is off.

In terms of the way I have things set up at the moment, I'd much rather play my bass than my '47 Olds Standard.

Everything is up to a point! That's the point. But keeping things in realistic terms, please, balance is a bigger issue than weight.

[RustBeltBass]

I feel this has been discussed many times before when it comes to horns and mouthpieces but not yet in a seperate conversation.

It's a perfectly acceptable opinion to say trombones have become big and ugly. On the flip side you could say, they have evolved as has the literature written for it.

The nice thing is that with so many options ob the market, it is easy to find a smaller set up despite the existence of the big horns.

[ghmerrill]

A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.

Those who favor chopsticks might disagree -- at least about forks. Not sure what their stance is likely to be on trombones.

[ghmerrill]

I'm still not at all clear on how monstrous and huge trombones have become in "modern" times (nor what counts as "modern"). For bass trombones, are we to take the "base case" to be something like the Olds or King or Conn horns of the 1960s and 1970s? So a paradigm would be something like the King Duo Gravis?

So how "monstrously" different in weight were those horns than (say) a Shires or Rath today? Or are we to think more of examples like the contemporary Yamahas as "monstrous" and "ugly"? I'm just trying to see where some kind of intelligible line can be drawn.

[Posaunus]

Chris, look what you've started.
Completely intentionally!

[RustBeltBass]

I like the purity of a straight tenor trombone. It's like a fork. A fork is mature and perfect in its form, and needs no additional design. Same with a trombone.

Happy and relieved this was not the consensus few hundred years ago, otherwise we'd all play sackbuts.

[tromboneVan]

Then came the titanium spork; something nobody knew they needed until they used one.

[blast]

As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.

[Burgerbob]

Few instruments were so underdeveloped 100 years ago compared to bass trombone.

[Posaunus]

Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.

This is one of the reasons (among many) that I will go no bigger (or uglier) than my 1969-vintage single-valve Conn 71H bass trombone.
[Of course I'm really not a bass trombonist but only a "doubler"; I'm old and my shoulders and arms are not getting any stronger; and I really have no desire to learn to operate a second valve.]

"Ugly" is of course (I guess) in the mind of the beholder. I'm not impressed by many attachment tubing wraps that extend more than a couple of inches beyond the main tuning slide (perhaps more "awkward" than "ugly"). I do find some of the newer wraps (seen on some "boutique" and "custom" trombones) to be handsome. I don't want my trombones to look like stretched multi-valved tubas.

[WGWTR180]

As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!! Rattled a few cages and got some glib comments . Also some interesting insights. Size of sound is not about numbers, but about design. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, but weight can be measured in the number of straps, rests poles and holding aids now employed by bass trombonists. To those who say nothing has changed, I say look around you. Weight, ergonomics and visual appeal are real issues.

So true.

[ghmerrill]

As Gabe realised, I thought I’d toss a torch in the fire and watch the flames !!!

I've been thinking you did this in part because you lack access today to our 4th of July activities and fireworks. So tossing a torch is in the same spirit.

(Many years ago I hosted a July 4 "party" at our place for my R&D group at SAS Institute. The younger members took the opportunity to fire bottle rockets at each other. Luckily no one was injured and no calls to the local volunteer fire department were required. My children, of course, loved it. The animals just ran and hid. )