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

[Digidog]

As the title says: Everywhere I look, builders describe and advertise their horns as either Bach- or Conn-style built, but why are there - to my knowledge - no builders that say they build instruments in the King-fashion?

I mean: Bach and Conn are two separating constructions and concepts, but in my opinion King has/had a third somewhat differing concept: wider bell throats, seemingly thicker bells, differently tapered tuning slides and different feel of the gooseneck. When I play one of these three brands, I sense there is difference enough between them to justify a third constructional distinction and main concept, but where does that show in the legacy for constructing new horns?

Or am I alone in this regard? Do everybody else see more of discernible differences between Conn and Bach to sort King into only one of those two main concepts?

The, to me, intriguing question then follows naturally: Are there more concepts of building trombones that do not fall into either the Bach, Conn (and maybe King) folds? Like three-piece (or more) bells, one-piece unsoldered bells, totally separating flare and/or throat progressions, different measurements and whatnot that could define a separate take on specifying a trombone?

[tbdana]

It's a King thing. It has its own identity, and shouldn't be lumped in with Bach or Conn styles. I don't know why builders have this Conn v Bach thing going on, except that those two brands are most popular in symphony orchestras, and King...not so much.

[MStarke]

Interesting question. Just some wild guesses:
- It might be less clear how to differentiate "King-style", not sure
- In the large bore area I would agree, it's mostly between Conn and Bach style, King doesn't really play a big role there
- For basses, King seems to be clearly different from Conn and Bach style, but has become more or less out of fashion
- For small bore, I would actually say there actually is a bit of a Conn and Bach AND King style
- However while actual current Conn and Bach smallbores seem to be not too popular anymore and boutique builders seem to offer potentially better alternatives, King seems to stand their ground far better. Maybe there simply isn't much room for an "improved King", as the 2bs and 3bs may be quite good by themselves?
- Lastly there seems to be at least a bit of King DNA spreading in other brands. I understood that the Greenhoe smallbore has been kind of oriented towards a mix between Conn and King characteristics

[Digidog]

What exactly is the King-style?

I tried go give some examples from my POV, but I'd love to hear more of what differentiates King into its own fold.

[GabrielRice]

Probably the biggest difference from a playing feel standpoint is the two-piece leadpipe, which ends up having a gap like a trumpet leadpipe.

[Digidog]

....and where are the builders who say "this our latest model is based on the legendary King 4B model, with our refined material selection, our latest slide design and our new eternal-flow valve. A horn that takes the King legacy into the next millennium!"?

And what builder says "our bass trombone is a development of the famous Duo Gravis concept, to give that unforgettable sound and characteristics a fresh take in 2025!"?

I've not seen anyone. Has anybody?

[MStarke]

If there were enough people who wanted an updated 4/5/6/7b, there would probably be someone building it. But there is probably a reason why even King have stopped most of that...

[atopper333]

Well, considering Considering Conn Selmer no longer makes new 4B trombones, it probably is just cost prohibitive for horn makers to make a horn based on an updated 4B model due to a lack of popularity. Don’t get me wrong, I love my 4BF, it’s a keeper for life, but I don’t see a massive following there.

A new model based on the 6B? That would have be the 7B introducing Independent valves or maybe the Benge 290 as a fresh take on King bases back when they came out? Now it only seems Chinese stencil companies work with the King design. From the common traffic I see here, the King basses just don’t seem to fit the model sound concept…

[Burgerbob]

I mean, it's pretty obvious right? The Kings are great horns- I love the 4B. But it never caught any real market share in the pro world. There's no incentive to make a King-style modern instrument for another maker.

And there is no money in making small stem/throat basses, either. No one is making 7X Conn copies or King copies.

Edit: I am only referring to the large instruments. Obviously there is plenty of share for the 2B/3B.

[DaveAshley]

XO's Fedchock horns are very much King-influenced.

[JohnL]

XO's Fedchock horns are very much King-influenced.

As are some of Yamaha's small-bores, at least from what I've heard.

Then there's the Wessex PB4501 P, which is very much Martin-inspired.

[tkelley216]

I figured Benge was one of King's last attempts of breaking into the "pro classical" market. Good horns (as are king 4/5/6/7) but never really took off, maybe because of how established/popular Bach, Conn, and their various copies are.

I personally would love to see a reboot of a duo gravis (or some maker's modern take on the duo gravis). That said, I see why makers don't. A duo gravis is kind of particular, and if you only own one bass trombone it might not be that one.

My instrument tech in Germany is designing a trombone with a slide based on the 4b, along with a meinlschmidt valve and a Bach-like bell. I don't think he's fleshed out the design yet, but I should ask him about it next time I see him.

[JohnL]

I personally would love to see a reboot of a duo gravis (or some maker's modern take on the duo gravis). That said, I see why makers don't. A duo gravis is kind of particular, and if you only own one bass trombone it might not be that one.

I had that conversation with Steve Shires at the NAMM Show several years ago. Lots of people talk about how cool it would be if someone introduced an updated Duo Gravis, but actually buying one is another matter entirely - particularly given how much more expensive the new version would be compared to buying a nice original one.

[Chazzer69]

removed

[hyperbolica]

King style to me means a bright commercial sound. I agree this needs to be an option in modern basses. We have this option in small tenors. Why no commercial basses?

[Finetales]

Funnily enough, the 4B was a little more popular among orchestral players in Europe than it ever was in the US. I think the Cleveland Orchestra was the only US section to use them.

The King "style" of large bore (and bass trombone, for that matter) is very different than Conn or Bach, but as others mentioned, it's not a style that people look for very often. The real deal Kings and Benges didn't accomplish much in their campaign to break into the orchestral world, so why would a manufacturer bother to copy them?

I haven't seen any direct responses to this question and I'd love to see those with expertise weigh in.

From a technical standpoint, I would say that narrow slides with a round end crook are the defining feature of the King (and Benge) style. It's a different blow, especially compared to Bach's wide slide/square crook approach.

King style to me means a bright commercial sound. I agree this needs to be an option in modern basses. We have this option in small tenors. Why no commercial basses?

I think this is just because bass equipment is much less specialized between orchestral and commercial. Any middle of the road bass trombone can play either orchestral or commercial perfectly well. So there isn't a huge market for a specialized commercial bass trombone.