Bach-style or Conn-style, but no King-style?

[JKBone85]

Why not an all over haul over?

[Digidog]

.... over all overhaul....

I support this phrase linguistically. This should be the buzzword of 2025.

It was a conscious hyperbole - or tautology - because I like assonance and to in a light-hearted manner stress the need for a more comprehensive work-through of the web page.

Many instrument manufacturer's web pages leave a lot to desire.

[Kbiggs]

I support this phrase linguistically. This should be the buzzword of 2025.

This is such rage bait

(Joke for those who aren't in the loop:https://www.npr.org/2025/12/01/nx-s1-56 ... f-the-year )

Over-haul the Bach style
Conn-over the King style
Style-King the Conn-pile
Rage-bait the bone-style
Toss ‘em in the burn pile
Roundabout the turnstile.

[slidesix]

Why no King style? I think there are probably a few reasons at play, some historically or cultural, some reasons due to the student/teacher/professional/heroes feedback loop, and some other reasons due to H. N. White Co. and their legacy.

Historically I think the modders and boutique makers like to take horns that may not have been made well from the factory and improved them. With H. N. White--unlike Conn or Bach or to a lesser degree Holton--they had pretty good (IMO, not a rule) build quality and consistency. So, there was much room for a modder or a boutique maker to rebuilt, destress, or improve the stock horn. Also, HN White seemed to focus on 2b and 3b, which are simpler straight horns. No idea why Gary Greenhoe wasn't modding valves on 3b/f's F attachment though? Or modding the linkage? I can't explain that one. But Bach and Conn have some issues in consistency from the factory, so that given room for makers and modders to work, no so much King (H N White).

Historically, H N White made the 3b for a long time and the 2b even longer than that. So a boutique horn would need to compete with a relatively cheap and plentiful numbers of 2bs and 3bs on the used market. Bach seems to command higher prices used, King not so much unless it was a sterling silver bell.

Historically, some of the signature sound of a King trombone likely may not lay solely in the bell construction as it might with Conn or Bach. With a King I see and hear the DNA or signature being part of the instrument as a whole: their specific King mouthpieces, the lead pipe choice, the dual bore in the case of the smaller 2b, the single radius slide crook, the well-executed outer slide movement, the gooseneck taper, the reverse tuning slide, AND the bell and its taper. So, you must take it all-in versus just having a custom boutique option at build time to add a “King bell” for the King house sound. Rhetorically, is it like you need to whole thing to really make a King? I don’t know. That’s how I think I see it. Let me know if you disagree or have information that shows my inference here is wrong. I’d like to know.

Culturally the movement of students and teachers and pros from small bore to large bore happened. Whether or not this is due to Emory Remington at the Eastman School or not may not matter for this post, but it happened. Neither King nor H N White was as popular nor successful in large bore 0.547 instruments as Conn or Bach. Or whether this was due to waning cultural appear of Jazz and Big Band music or not. And small-bore trombones were where King was more successful.

Culturally, it could just be that the house sound of a King isn’t what audiences, music directors, and players are looking for? I have read that King could have what is called a “German sound”—a sound that sails above a group or carries and projects instead of blends as a big wall of dark? I have also read that King (except sterling silver bells) can have a nature that breaks up when pushed really hard at the loudest, projecting volumes? And maybe that plays into why other styles like Bach, which is known to project well at loud dynamics, are preferred and also taken up for modding and boutique.

In the feedback loop, except for Jazz greats like Tommy Dorsey or J.J. Johnson, King hasn’t been a popular trombone for teachers or household greats or heroes. I think Joe Alessi has likely helped sell a lot of Bachs, Edwards, and S.E. Shires to students. I think Christian Lindberg has helped to sell a lot of Conn 88Hs and Conn 88HSGXCLs to students. Some students want to play on the horn their heroes play. And today that is Conn, Bach, Edwards, Shires, Schilke Greenhoe, etc. Plus some students may naturally see custom horns as a tier ABOVE professional horns. And King nor H.N. White played much in this space. Although it could be argued that King is a artist horn for Thomas King, a professional trombone player, and the original Kings were artist horns for H.N. White. But I think this might a stretch. I don’t think modern players see King as an artist model. They see King as a company or manufacturer or as part of Conn-Selmer. They may see King as a jazz horn. They may see King as placed below Bach on the hierarchy. Certainly UMI (pre merger) also did this with King/Conn and C-S seemingly does this, too, today. But this might be a stretch. But whatever mental gymnastics I’m doing here, students, teachers, and pros—outside of James DeSano of The Cleveland Orchestra—no one is modeling King as something aspirational. And James hasn’t been with Cleveland for about 2 decades now.

In the feedback loop, it is important that heroes, pros, and students all want the horn. The heroes and pros help keep things aspirational and serve as marketing. The students and school band programs are the bread and butter that keep the industry moving due to their market. The student and band programs are HUGE. They likely outnumber the pros at least 2:1 if not more! Is the student and band programs’ volume that keep the manufacturers and afloat. It is possible that boutique manufactures are insulated from this. Especially if their margins and volumes to pros are high enough! But King doesn’t seem to benefit from this feedback loop. So, King suffers here.

In the feedback loop, Conn and Bach had first-mover advantage here. So maybe king would have a hard time keeping up, absent some new tech that is a must-have? The heroes, pros, and teachers likely all play Conn or Bach style horns. So it is likely their students will, too. For a while it may have looked like Benge might have or could have broken into that? But we know now that for Benge, that ultimately was not true.

For legacy, a lot of small-bore H.N. White King trombones still survive in playable or collectible shape. Maybe of these can be used as-is. The story for large-bore H.N. White King trombones or even KMI King trombones or UMI King trombones, or C-S King trombones: there isn’t much love for large bore outside of small aberration in Cleveland under DeSano. For the large bores, the early ones had ergonomic issues. Yet we don’t see Minnick modded ones like we see for Holton. Why? I don’t know. Maybe even Mininck couldn’t save them. Maybe not even Shires or Brasslab could fix them? Maybe there was no interest? It just seems to me that is the King legacy. They vintage horns are playable as-is and only in small bore. Maybe it is simpler than that and King= Jazz horn. Full stop. And maybe no amount of marketing Benge could change that? Maybe it is even simpler and there is no interest?

What I do know is there is some interest here, hence this thread. Thanks to all who shared and thanks to the person who started it. I enjoyed thinking about this. I enjoyed writing this post. Thanks!

[slidesix]

for modern students and pros looking for a good replacement for King commercial sound, a good custom Rath might just fit the bill! At least in my mind, that is what I think of as aspirational for the market that King sometimes served or used to serve: Rath might be the new King in town? Maybe?

(pardon the pun at the end)

[Fidbone]

for modern students and pros looking for a good replacement for King commercial sound, a good custom Rath might just fit the bill! At least in my mind, that is what I think of as aspirational for the market that King sometimes served or used to serve: Rath might be the new King in town? Maybe?

(pardon the pun at the end)

Rath are nothing like king, rather more in the direction of Bach (small bore wise that is).

The R1 was based off Mark Nightingale’s Bach 16, the R2 has 16M characteristics.
I tried to get Mick to do a King 3b style trombone but he wasn’t interested.

[Digidog]

Rath are nothing like king, rather more in the direction of Bach (small bore wise that is).

The R1 was based off Mark Nightingale’s Bach 16, the R2 has 16M characteristics.
I tried to get Mick to do a King 3b style trombone but he wasn’t interested.

When you asked Rath to do a King-style 3B-ish horn: What, if you did, did you specify it to be? Or did you assume that Rath would have an idea and a concept of what it would be (regarding measurements, materials and shape)?

And did you get - or percieve - an explanation to why they weren’t interested in building one?

[Fidbone]

Rath are nothing like king, rather more in the direction of Bach (small bore wise that is).

The R1 was based off Mark Nightingale’s Bach 16, the R2 has 16M characteristics.
I tried to get Mick to do a King 3b style trombone but he wasn’t interested.

When you asked Rath to do a King-style 3B-ish horn: What, if you did, did you specify it to be? Or did you assume that Rath would have an idea and a concept of what it would be (regarding measurements, materials and shape)?

And did you get - or percieve - an explanation to why they weren’t interested in building one?

Because they already had the R2 which is a similar size and in order to produce a more King 3b style would require new bell mandrel and new tooling etc.
The R2 is more akin to a Bach 16 M.
Bell flare, spout and throat are totally different to the 3B as is lead pipe, slide, tuning slide etc. In other words everything is different

[slidesix]

Rath are nothing like king, rather more in the direction of Bach (small bore wise that is).

The R1 was based off Mark Nightingale’s Bach 16, the R2 has 16M characteristics.

Good to know. And thanks for educating me or enlightening me on this. Thanks! I appreciate it from those who know!

[KingThings]

My two cents: large-bore King instruments tend to have a more “Germanic” sound to them than do American (Conn and Bach) instruments. It’s a lighter, brighter sound that is still powerful.

If you have a chance to listen to old recordings of the Vienna Philharmonic, you can hear traditional German trombones. Then listen to the same piece with Cleveland under George Szell. There’s a similarity in sound (but not style) to the trombones. Then listen to the same piece with a modern American trombone section. A very different sound.

You can play loudly with them with less effort but—and this is the “more Germanic” quality to them—instead of most American horns that are like a bulldozer and bury everything in their path, Kings (like German trombones) can cut through the orchestra or sail over it. You can still hear the strings and winds and all the other brass, but you also hear the louder, “brassy” or “shimmery” sound of the trombone. And you can do that with less effort.

There’s an anecdote about Szell and James DeSano (I’ll probably get this wrong): DeSano was trying a different horn, perhaps a Bach or a Conn. Szell immediately heard the difference and asked DeSano to go back to the “more German” sounding instrument.

Why do the large-bore Kings sound more “Germanic”? I’ll leave the more complete answer to the techs, but my guess is the tapers in the bell, the neckpipe, and the tuning slide; the size of the F-valve (and other valve) tubing; the U-shaped slide bow; and the nickel silver slides.

I think it’s a shame that the classical trombone world continues to trend towards homogeneity of sound. I like the differences in sound—the old fashioned French trombones (and horns with their weird vibrato!), the German-sounding instruments, the old Besson-dominated British orchestras. Vive la difference!

I like your comment. I use a 1480 on first and second chair symphony for just those reasons. Its unique, and it can be very mellow and blend well at low volume but when you use a bit of air it sails with ease. Szell insisted on it for a reason. Pianos have gone the same route......with the elimination of the Viennese instruments only Boesendorfer remains, and essentially all pianos pretty much sound alike. manufacturers aim for uniformity of sound and consolidation of companies leaves little room for diversity.