TubaForum.net

Last night, I was part of the most exciting performance of Bolero that I've ever been involved with or heard live. Everyone played their solos magnificently and very expressively. (The normally-principal bassoon moved over to second bassoon for that piece and also covered both of the saxophone solos - one after the other - absolutely as well as I've ever heard either of those solos played (including recordings). The second bassoon - who moved to principal for this piece - played the bassoon solo wonderfully.) The time stayed perfect throughout - with an amazing snare drum player, the intonation was impeccable throughout, the effect of the super-long crescendo was obvious (rather than some of the intermediate statements being out of proportion in the crescendo, which happens with some performances) perfectly executed.
================
My subtopic - still having this piece on my mind - is the size of the trombones that - at least - Americans use to play the Bolero trombone solo. Not only the solo, but they have to come back and play it at least once or twice more (and extremely loudly) "avec ensemble".

The principal trombone is a very mature (septogenarian) and a very top echelon schooled player with quite an instructional pedigree. This defines their trombone-playing views very conservative, and very (I would say) 1970s-oriented towards equipment. That was a time when anything that could be come up with which was bigger was considered better. Against their own teaching and traditions (to their credit, in my view), they brought a .525" bore instrument to play this concert and played it really well, but they still used a really large mouthpiece to play that instrument, it just seems to me that something like Bolero could best be played on something no larger than a .490" to .510" bore range trombone with a 7 1/2" or 8" bell, and some sort of mouthpiece between the 7C and 12C size range (and with a small throat). Yes, this would require them to spend a lot of time becoming acclimated to that instrument and that mouthpiece, but many of us who play tubas (plural) do that sort of thing all the time, and that includes our exposed passages. It just still seems to me to be a bit of athletic event to place such a high and exposed solo (with all of the special characteristics within that solo) with a big trombone, and .525" bore trombones with symphonic mouthpieces are still pretty darn big trombones. Of course, it's absolutely none of my business, but that doesn't keep us (certainly not me) from having opinions about all sorts of things, does it?

I've also mentioned the same thing in another thread, and referred to Wade's thread about wondering if we who owns 6/4 size tubas tend to always feel like we ought to bring them, lest we be judged - or judge ourselves - as "cheating" or some such. (For what it's worth, I left my 6/4 size tuba at home and brought a smallish 4/4 size contrabass tuba to play this concert, and will refer to Unclebeer's comment about this - sonic efficiency - as well as his agreement with his renowned teacher regarding this as well.)

Well, a .525 bore trombone is IMHO a very fine instrument for the Bolero solo, especially if played with a matching mouthpiece. I would prefer a Bach 6.5 size, or a Yamaha 48 size, of whatever brand the player likes the most.

Bell size is actually not that important for the tonal color, its more about the leadpipe, bore, taper of the throat.

A very good reason for NOT taking out a .500 size trombone for many smaller people is the fact that one hardly can find one with a valve, if one wants this convenience.

Thats why the dual bore 0.500 to 0.525 Yamaha YSL 356 G is the smallest bore American style trombone I own. It saves me for a very akward 7 position in fast passages.

Another good reason for NOT taking out your 0.500 ish bore for 1 trombone chair is that it would not blend well with a 0.548 bore 2 trombone and a 0.568 bass trombone. Unless you convince the two others to downsize as well, which is not easy for the bass bone.

Stop overanalysing, it doesn't get any better than this.

Bloke, while your trombone colleague used the correct size trombone (lengthwise), you brought an instrument which was 225% longer than what would have been used for Bolero.

UncleBeer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:16 pm Bloke, while your trombone colleague used the correct size trombone (lengthwise), you brought an instrument which was 225% longer than what would have been used for Bolero.

known, but - again - we live several decades into the rock-music/big-bass and post-London FFRR classical music recordings era...

...True, yet (being remarkably frank) those (and all other C euphoniums that others have offered to the market - at least, when played by mediocre blokes such as myself) offer really challenging intonation characteristics. I'm fine with others choosing most any size/length instruments (of any length), but I'm just not willing to practice at home to (mostly) muscle-remember the personally contortuous things that I (the player) must to do overcome epic built-into-instruments quirks. Congrats to you, sir, for mastering the things that one must to to play those things with modern near-perfect tuning expectations, but I have other things pulling at my daily routine...and (with all the continuous poking done re: these seemingly always-in-stock instruments), the French themselves stepped away from them well over a half century ago, and (as I've made known here) I - unlike most - recognize when one of them might actually (other than the challenging-at-least-to-me tuning characteristics) be a better choice than some other longer/larger tuba - and use my B-flat-and-also-fully-chromatic/very-similar instrument on such works (which is far closer to the same instrument that most all other players use for most any late-19th/early-20th c. French-composed symphonic work).

Here are some other French instruments from the same era which the French themselves no long use:
(yet sure: for those with leisure time, wonderful curiosities)





All of the above instruments were/are completely playable, but they're also all remarkably quirky.

This all having been said, to decide to play a pre-1960's-used French tuba to cover any/all pre-tuba works's parts (serpent, ophicleide, the mysterious Italian "cimbasso", etc.) is - at least, to me - a bit of a non sequitur (literally "does not follow"). Personally (yes) I would choose an instrument (playing such works) that doesn't auto-project a "blanket" type of resonance and which allows me to cover the frequency range of the written part securely, but (even had I mastered playing one and actually owned one) I wouldn't necessarily look in the corner of my tuba room where my French tuba's case sits, and auto-grab that for all serpent/ophicleide orchestral parts.

----------------------------------
Otherwise, "the engineer" continues to be stuck within the dismissive/unimaginative "because so-and-so/common-practice: therefore: must-be-the-best" mentality.
Though that player (pictured, I didn't click the link - knowing full well that the rendition would be superb) is absolutely a super-hero of the trombone, we'll likely never have the opportunity to hear them play that solo passage on a smaller instrument (and judge whether their rendition might be even better to our ears), will we?

Stepping away from this thread, as I know it's a sensitive topic for some. You're welcome.

UncleBeer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 4:26 pm Stepping away from this thread, as I know it's a sensitive topic for some. You're welcome.

I don't believe you need to do that.

I'm not arguing, but only explaining why they don't appeal to me.

As with other tubas/euphoniums, it just seems to me that - if French tubas are going to be reintroduced to the tuba community - rather than replicas of originals, it might be interesting for acoustical improvements to be researched/discovered/incorporated. If the tuning characteristics seem to be stuck at some place, a couple of thumb triggers (thumbs are not committed to any valves, correct?) could be assigned to do helpful things.

Even in fairly recent history, quite a few C (so-called "CC") and F models have been introduced to the market with remarkably challenging intonation characteristics, yet others have been introduced (via acoustical research, for "best compromise" tuning characteristics - and calculations/computer programs far beyond my own level of understanding) which (though far from perfect - as it's surely impossible to build any "perfect" instrument, just as it's impossible to render an "perfect" performance) offer players quite a bit easier paths towards offering excellent intonation.

I'm not against C euphoniums (whether small-bore equipped with big mouthpieces and whether Blaikley or non-compensating 6-valve) and nor am I against CC tubas (though I'm not in the market for either 8' nor 16' bugle C instruments) but - were I in the market for either - I'd be looking for instruments that offer me a very easy go of it, intonation-wise.

ex: Decades ago, I owned a vintage Alexander "CC" tuba for less than a year. I found that "the Alexander sound" - paired with "Alexander fingerings" - was (ok: analogy?) sort of akin to marrying a really gorgeous/remarkably kind woman who has two or three really-bratty children in tow.