Old Bach Trombones

[sameerbtrombone]

I have heard a lot about Bach trombones and the year of manufacturing being a big deal in terms of how the horn feels to play.

I wanted to ask what is everyone's experience with Bach trombones, as I am interested in owning one someday but am weary about the year and model I get. Preferably a bass trombone.

[RJMason]

You will receive a number of opinions on a post like this, but here’s mine:

No trombone sounds quite like a Bach.

Finding the right one takes an open mind, it’s not just about gear. Older horns can be incredible, but not always. Some vintage Bachs underwhelm while modern ones can surprise.

I own two small tenors, both great, but vastly improved with a skilled repair tech's touch. A rebuilt Bach can outplay even high-end boutique horns. Many makers attempt to make Bach Style bells and instruments, but almost none actually sound close to one.

For bass, many swap out Bach’s stock rotors for modern valve sections.

Generally look for horns from the 70s–90s. Affordable and reliable. The Bach Loyalist is a website with serial number lists to estimate the age of the horn within a year or two. Earlier models made in New York are rare, pricey, and sometimes made with different specs and materials than currently offered, while newer ones often need significant work to play as well as a modern boutique offering.

Try before you buy whenever possible.

Enjoy the process, it’s part of the magic.

[sirisobhakya]

I have tried 3 vintage Bach basses. A 50B (single rotor), a 50B3L (independent double rotors, large bell), both are school horns, and a Shires hybrid with Bach bell of a professional trombonist I know.

For all 3, there is something different in the sound. Something I would call “meat”, “compactness”, “thickness”, or “core”. I don’t like this style of sound that much, but there is something there that sets Bach horns apart.

[hyperbolica]

There are bad and good horns from every era and year, although most of the bad old horns have been sorted out in one way or another by this time. You always have to try before you buy.

"Old" (Mt Vernon and older ~1965) basses are hard to come by, so you have to be patient and have your money ready.

You can still get newer 50s that sound and play great, you just have to try before you buy.

[GabrielRice]

Here's the thing: the best thing about an old Bach is almost always the bell, and you are likely to need everything else about the instrument modified.

The valves are fundamentally not good. The tuning slide may or may not actually be round. I bought a 50B with a serious problem that I was able to isolate to the leadpipe, which had been installed at the factory with a big outside-in dent and with way too much solder. In 1976...not usually considered the bad era of Bach.

There is something special about a good Bach bass trombone bell though. If you luck into a Mount Vernon or NY bell in good shape, fantastic! Have a great instrument built around it. A more economical option is to look for an Elkhart bell that is stamped CORPORATION underneath the Vincent Bach signature, which would put it in the late 60s through the 70s. The yellow bells (at least) from this era typically have steel bead wire (you can tell by holding a magnet to it), and they are typically a bit thinner and more responsive, resonant, and colorful than the thicker bells from later. If you keep an eye on eBay and various online classifieds, you can find a Corporation 50B or 50B2 with the bell in good shape for about $2000, maybe less if you're lucky.

Then you will need modern valves and probably need the slide rebuilt at the very least. TBH, the Stephens slide from Steve Shires I am currently playing on my Bach bell with Greenhoe valves (while I wait for the rest of the Stephens instrument) is far better in every way than any Bach slide I've had.

By the time you do all that, you will likely have spent more than you would have by buying a new custom instrument from Shires, Edwards, M&W, Stephens, or Rath.

Will it be worth it? Maybe.

[Leanit]

It varies like crazy. I've played several old Bachs and they're all over the map. I ended up with a 1931 version because it's fantastic, not because it's old.

[dbwhitaker]

Then you will need modern valves and probably need the slide rebuilt at the very least.

I've been wondering what to do with the 50B2 that I bought in 1974. I guess that's the answer.

[elmsandr]

…
By the time you do all that, you will likely have spent more than you would have by buying a new custom instrument from Shires, Edwards, M&W, Stephens, or Rath.

Will it be worth it? Maybe.

For me it is worth it…. But I don’t make my money off it. I like that there is something there that begs me to play more and to find that consistency so I can get that great depth of sound and foldable character whenever I want it. Of course, I can’t. I don’t practice enough to make it so.

I have owned a nice Edwards… I put a Bach bell on it, and then just swapped it out for an entire late 60s Bach. I very briefly had a Shires, it wasn’t fit for me, but was a good horn and easy to play. But it didn’t make me want to sit and wallow in my own sound. So I sold it for a different set of valves to put on the Bachs.

The newer horns are easier blows certainly. They probably sound better to the group and to the audience, even the discerning ears. But are they as much fun? I feel it is a bit like golf… there’s that one shot that keeps you coming back to do it again, even if you can’t hit it every time.

Now, jut one more tweak to this horn,
Andy

[RJMason]

I’m with Andy. Playing a Bach makes me want to keep playing. The only non-Bachs that do it for me are the Conn 6H and 88H. Every big breakthrough I’ve had in my playing came from being consistent on a Bach. I’ve owned everything, from Minick customs to $100 eBay finds, and nothing else got me there. Funny enough, those breakthroughs show up easier when I switch to other horns.

It’s the bell, man. I’ve tried every clone, NY Shires, whatever, they don’t touch it. A one-piece soldered bell isn’t the magic. The Shires bell just sounds like a Yamaha with more color and width but twice the price. With a Bach, it’s the sound I hear in my head. Guess I studied with too many Bach players.

That said, my Yamaha’s easier to play when I’m slammed with travel or commercial work. Yamaha for work, Bach for art. When it’s both, Bach wins.

[Burgerbob]

As Gabe said, the magic is in the bells. The rest of the parts matter, but MUCH less than the bell. That also makes them difficult and expensive, though, since you're often buying an entire instrument just for one part of it.

[baileyman]

Bach typically has a number of internal bore inconsistencies such as the slide crook joints, the slide to bell joint, the tuning slide joints, all of which I suspect add sound character. Those who use only the bell may avoid those niggles, and I for one would like to hear from someone who has experience with both as to how the inconsistencies affect sound and behavior.

[Burgerbob]

Well, I've gone through plenty of both (and have both right now). A stock 50B can sound very good, but it's definitely much more of a struggle than my M&W, which is easier to play in every regard, as well as overall clearer in sound.

[MBurner]

My favorite recordings are of Bach trombones. The allure is there, much like the Yankee pinstripes.
It’s been said, but I would do this:
Go to the factory and try as many as possible.
Find an older corp that sounds good, and get it rebuilt with no stress. Get the leadpipe pulled. Then you’ll have a great horn.
My forever horn is a ‘72 bell with a ‘68 slide. $1000 in parts and $1000 in modifications- well worth it!

[samboni]

What is it about the old bach bells? As mentioned, the best ones are often a bit thinner. What's stopping anyone else from being able to copy the magic?

[Burgerbob]

What is it about the old bach bells? As mentioned, the best ones are often a bit thinner. What's stopping anyone else from being able to copy the magic?

but nothing compares. The new Omalley stuff is pretty close, but it's still not quite the same thing. Nothing else is even close.

[NotSkilledHere]

nothing is really stopping anyone from replicating the magic aside from the knowhow of exactly how they made it. the best bell spinners are all just one step away from replicating that sort of desired magic. and sometimes they accidentally do it, but dont know what specifically it was that did it. and im pretty sure there are documents on all the ways their bells were spun and hammered and whatnot. but yet nobody has consistently and reliably recreated in its entirety, that old bach magic.

it's why the old thin bach bells are so sought after and similarly why old elkhart conns are so loved. there's been many companies that try to mimick the old stuff. all the major boutique-ish modular brands have claimed that they make a bell that recreates that old bach sound and feel or elkhart conn counterparts. even conn themselves have tried to replicate their old magic. some are closer than others to success. but you see people remounting bach bells and conn bells onto modern chassis of all flavors.

is it the type of hammer they used to hammer the brass? the angle at which they hit the brass? specific blend of brass? is it some level of work hardening achieved in some way after the hammering? was the way the brass was transported from foundry to bach somehow temp treated just by atmosphere and weather? maybe the bellspinners just smoked cigs and the particular ashes that touched the bell is the fairy dust that gave it everything it needed to sing the way they do? at this point, it could be anything. who knows? and to exhaustively test every possible scenario is impossible because at some point you are testing things that are scientifically rounding errors or nonfactors grasping at straws to make that sound.

perhaps someday someone will discover what it is that gives those old thin bach bells such a flavor, and it'll prolly be something stupid like improperly stored brass that sat out in the winter cold in a shed out back behind the factory.

[MrHCinDE]

My favorite recordings are of Bach trombones. The allure is there, much like the Yankee pinstripes.
It’s been said, but I would do this:
Go to the factory and try as many as possible.
Find an older corp that sounds good, and get it rebuilt with no stress. Get the leadpipe pulled. Then you’ll have a great horn.
My forever horn is a ‘72 bell with a ‘68 slide. $1000 in parts and $1000 in modifications- well worth it!

Or kiss a few straight 42 frogs until you find the one, then get it fitted with a modern valve section by your trusted master craftsperson.

[elmsandr]

/whispers
There probably is no magic? New Bach bells have a similar likelihood to be awesome as some old ones, but maybe percentage chance changes.

Here’s the other secret, we won’t all agree on which one of ten lined up is the “magic” one. The imperfect measurement (our ears) and the significant interaction (player and horn) make a completely unreliable system to find “the magic”.

I like the old ones, but my random 90s yellow flare is perfectly lovely, too.

Cheers,
Andy

[hornbuilder]

And there are those who listen with their eyes.

[GabrielRice]

And there are those who listen with their eyes.

[harrisonreed]

As Gabe said, the magic is in the bells. The rest of the parts matter, but MUCH less than the bell.

See, I believe this . I know the are a ton of people who start by picking a bell and base everything around that. Lots of these people sound fantastic. I have found, for me, that the bell is the least interesting part in putting a trombone together.

I wonder if that is why I don't get along with Bach horns at all?

[tbdana]

I think the notion that old Bachs are categorically better is a myth. Two things: (1) only the good horns from back then have survived, being cherished and cared for (and modified), while the others fell away through attrition; (2) human nature gives us a nostalgic streak, which has created the "they don't make 'em like they used to" trope regarding everything old from trombones, to washing machines, to cars, to dogs, to children.

In reality, manufactured things generally improve over time as makers constantly try to improve them. This is sometimes blunted by profit incentives, but the overall trend is that newer things are better. When you have something as simple as a trombone, improvements are small. It's like with forks. It's hard to improve the fork, a simple device that has been around a very long time. The same holds true for trombones. Most of the improvements are incredibly small and are often mere preferences and trends rather than actual improvements because, like the fork, the instrument has been fully formed for a very long time.

They made crappy horns and great horns back in the day. The crappy ones have tended to disappear, while the great ones have been loved and preserved.

[AtomicClock]

They made crappy horns and great horns back in the day. The crappy ones have tended to disappear, while the great ones have been loved and preserved.

This seems unlikely to me. The crappy ones aren't constructed less well. I can believe that the great ones percolate up to the pros who can tell the difference, and the crappy ones linger in community bands and orchestras. I've played a Bach 42 for thirty years. Up until 6 months ago, it's the only 42 I've ever played. I have no idea if it's great or terrible. I wonder if my amateur chops (and ears) could even tell the difference.

One of the discussions in sacbut construction is the belief that the few surviving examples only survived because they were the bad ones that didn't get played to death; and so shouldn't be copied so exactingly. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the opposite of Dana's stance.

[GabrielRice]

They made crappy horns and great horns back in the day. The crappy ones have tended to disappear, while the great ones have been loved and preserved.

This seems unlikely to me. The crappy ones aren't constructed less well.

Actually they are constructed less well. That's what makes them crappy in most cases. Example below.

Otherwise I think you're generally correct. Steve Shires always warns against vintage instruments that look like they haven't been played...they usually haven't been played for a reason.

A few months ago I bought a mid-70s Bach 50B off of eBay. It looked clean but maybe not TOO clean. Turned out it was too clean...when I put it together to play it, it was stuffy, diffuse, and at least 30 cents flat. I traded out parts and isolated the inner slide as the problem. With a different handslide the bell section was everything you want in a vintage Bach - ringing, clear, resonant.

So I had the leadpipe pulled. It had a big outside-in dent in it and way too much solder. There was no evidence it had been pulled previously, so it must have been installed at the factory that way. My tech fixed the dent in the leadpipe and reinstalled it, and now it plays very well (not as well as my Stephens slide though.)

[AtomicClock]

I guess I meant they aren't more likely to fall apart. The occasional solder joint can be repaired. But I doubt there are enough of those in a horn to declare it a lost cause.

In your example, the problem, if left undiagnosed, might be enough to cause a player to quit playing. But is it bad enough to convince the owner to send it to a landfill? Of course not.

[Finetales]

Two things: (1) only the good horns from back then have survived, being cherished and cared for (and modified), while the others fell away through attrition;

In my experience, this is especially untrue for old Bachs specifically. There are a LOT of bad Bachs from all eras still out there, and even more mediocre ones. It's is why Bach hunters have to go through so many to find their holy grail(s).

I've played many old Bachs (not as much as the real Bach junkies of course) and most of them were ok at best. The magic ones are truly magic, but there are far more Bachs out there that don't have it than those that do. And even the best ones get even better when you modernize them.

It's true for other makes, too...I have played and owned quite a few terrible Elkhart Conns (and a few amazing ones).

[harrisonreed]

The new bachs I've tried, since maybe 2010, have been pretty difficult to play. Bach never made trombones like, say, Yamaha does. It was tied to who was spinning bells on xyz day, or who was assembling horns, not some overall process that got better over time.

The idea about going to the factory and cherry picking the best components to assemble some god-tier horn speaks to the inconsistency in the past (is, you needed to find the bell that was spun by Jim AND assembled by Sue, with the outer slide from Tim (but only if it was a Tuesday) and inner slide made by Jane) and the fact that you really can't do that any more tells you the rest of the story.

[Bach5G]

I’ve wondered about Bill W’s Bach over the years,whether it’s the same horn, whether he had work done on it, There must be quite a few miles on it if it is the original. One might wonder if Bill hadn’t worn out a few over the years.

[tbdana]

The new bachs I've tried, since maybe 2010, have been pretty difficult to play. Bach never made trombones like, say, Yamaha does. It was tied to who was spinning bells on xyz day, or who was assembling horns, not some overall process that got better over time.

The idea about going to the factory and cherry picking the best components to assemble some god-tier horn speaks to the inconsistency in the past (is, you needed to find the bell that was spun by Jim AND assembled by Sue, with the outer slide from Tim (but only if it was a Tuesday) and inner slide made by Jane) and the fact that you really can't do that any more tells you the rest of the story.

Except that on Tuesday it has to be before lunch, because Tim loved his four martini lunches.

[tbdana]

I’ve wondered about Bill W’s Bach over the years,whether it’s the same horn, whether he had work done on it, There must be quite a few miles on it if it is the original. One might wonder if Bill had’t worn out a few over the years.

There really is no "it" as far as Bill's horn goes. It's "them." He had a boatload of horns over the years, some of which he never even used. One of which he gave to me. A few that he played on for many years. At least when I knew him, I don't think he had any work done on his horns beyond what Bach did for him (which was anything he wanted). But he liked Larry Minick's work, so it's possible there were some mods there.

[harrisonreed]

The new bachs I've tried, since maybe 2010, have been pretty difficult to play. Bach never made trombones like, say, Yamaha does. It was tied to who was spinning bells on xyz day, or who was assembling horns, not some overall process that got better over time.

The idea about going to the factory and cherry picking the best components to assemble some god-tier horn speaks to the inconsistency in the past (is, you needed to find the bell that was spun by Jim AND assembled by Sue, with the outer slide from Tim (but only if it was a Tuesday) and inner slide made by Jane) and the fact that you really can't do that any more tells you the rest of the story.

Except that on Tuesday it has to be before lunch, because Tim loved his four martini lunches.

You get my point though

I think you're actually right about Tim ...

[Bach5G]

I’ve wondered about Bill W’s Bach over the years,whether it’s the same horn, whether he had work done on it, There must be quite a few miles on it if it is the original. One might wonder if Bill had’t worn out a few over the years.

There really is no "it" as far as Bill's horn goes. It's "them." He had a boatload of horns over the years, some of which he never even used. One of which he gave to me. A few that he played on for many years. At least when I knew him, I don't think he had any work done on his horns beyond what Bach did for him (which was anything he wanted). But he liked Larry Minick's work, so it's possible there were some mods there.

That makes much more sense to me.

[Posaunus]

I’ve wondered about Bill W’s Bach over the years,whether it’s the same horn, whether he had work done on it, There must be quite a few miles on it if it is the original. One might wonder if Bill had’t worn out a few over the years.

There really is no "it" as far as Bill's horn goes. It's "them." He had a boatload of horns over the years, some of which he never even used. One of which he gave to me. A few that he played on for many years. At least when I knew him, I don't think he had any work done on his horns beyond what Bach did for him (which was anything he wanted). But he liked Larry Minick's work, so it's possible there were some mods there.

Did Bill "wear out" or damage his trombones, or did he just enjoy new and shiny - or playing the field?

Did he also change (or have modified) mouthpieces?

[tbdana]

There really is no "it" as far as Bill's horn goes. It's "them." He had a boatload of horns over the years, some of which he never even used. One of which he gave to me. A few that he played on for many years. At least when I knew him, I don't think he had any work done on his horns beyond what Bach did for him (which was anything he wanted). But he liked Larry Minick's work, so it's possible there were some mods there.

Did Bill "wear out" or damage his trombones, or did he just enjoy new and shiny - or playing the field?

Did he also change (or have modified) mouthpieces?

You know, I'm sorry but I can't really say. Neither of us talked about equipment a lot. Neither of us were prone to making modifications to horns. Both of us stayed for a long time on horns we liked. So we didn't really have those kinds of discussions.

But from what I observed over 15 years, Bill stuck with a horn he liked for a long time and took incredibly good care of it. Definitely never damaged or wore them out. He claimed to clean his horn inside and out every single day, but I took that with a grain of salt knowing that he was prone to exaggeration to make a point. He may have, though, for all I know. I know he cleaned and lubed the inner slides every day. But he definitely took excellent care of his horn(s), and I think that is because he was very loyal to them.

[hyperbolica]

...It’s the bell, man. I’ve tried every clone, NY Shires, whatever, they don’t touch it. A one-piece soldered bell isn’t the magic. The Shires bell just sounds like a Yamaha with more color and width but twice the price....

This.

Plus, the magic is partially a function of how metal relaxes over time, and especially old bells that have been played a lot at a high level. Heat treat processes leave a mark you can't see with the naked eye and you can't reverse engineer accurately.

[dukesboneman]

I`m primarily a Bach player. Nothing sounds or feels quite like a Bach, no matter what the bore size.
I currently own 2 Bach 12`s (Vastly different but wonderful in their own ) Mount Vernon36, Corp. sliver plated 36B
42BO with the OLsen Rotary and a 50B3 . Every time I play something else that might feel or sound good in the moment. I come back to one of my comparable Bachs and that sound and feel is there. the only horn that comes close (for me) is a small bore Edwards

[CharlieA]

I own 5 Bach horns right now, 4 of which are strads, and I must say that there is truly nothing like them. they are some of the most rich and warm horns I've ever played (totally not biased). I own a 16, 36, 42, and 50b2 and the only complaint would be the valves. I wouldn't recommend getting a though 50b2 due to the fact that the valves are so stuffy its a chore to play. If you are trying to get a bass trombone I would recommend that you look for one that doesn't have the stock rotors. even on the b3's that I've played it's chore to push air through. I have not played on the stock axials or haggman's so I cant put any input on those, but if you are looking to buy one with stock rotors I would advise against it. Right now I'm getting mine replaced with instrument innovations axials because I just had enough with the fight. if you find a good deal with axials I would definitely get it. but the stock valves it comes with are just not good enough for a pro line horn.

[LeTromboniste]

I think the notion that old Bachs are categorically better is a myth. Two things: (1) only the good horns from back then have survived, being cherished and cared for (and modified), while the others fell away through attrition; (2) human nature gives us a nostalgic streak, which has created the "they don't make 'em like they used to" trope regarding everything old from trombones, to washing machines, to cars, to dogs, to children.

In reality, manufactured things generally improve over time as makers constantly try to improve them. This is sometimes blunted by profit incentives, but the overall trend is that newer things are better. When you have something as simple as a trombone, improvements are small. It's like with forks. It's hard to improve the fork, a simple device that has been around a very long time. The same holds true for trombones. Most of the improvements are incredibly small and are often mere preferences and trends rather than actual improvements because, like the fork, the instrument has been fully formed for a very long time.

They made crappy horns and great horns back in the day. The crappy ones have tended to disappear, while the great ones have been loved and preserved.

I agree with much of this, but I'm not sure I agree with the idea that newer things are inherently better. In the case of musical instrument manufacture, there is a strong case to be made for slower, less automated processes and the importance of a highly skilled and careful craftsperson. That's the trade-off when you increase production speed, volume and profitability. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that at a time where Bach was not as huge a company, made things more bespoke and probably wasn't cutting corners as round, they were making better instruments, like the boutique makers of today.

One of the discussions in sacbut construction is the belief that the few surviving examples only survived because they were the bad ones that didn't get played to death; and so shouldn't be copied so exactingly. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the opposite of Dana's stance.

Frankly, I've only read or heard that hypothesis put forth by people who have clearly never seen a museum specimen up close. It's a myth and it doesn't hold water.

[atopper333]

I agree with much of this, but I'm not sure I agree with the idea that newer things are inherently better. In the case of musical instrument manufacture, there is a strong case to be made for slower, less automated processes and the importance of a highly skilled and careful craftsperson. That's the trade-off when you increase production speed, volume and profitability.

I do agree with you on this as well. Are some things better? Maybe. What I will grant is that horns are more consistently the same with modern manufacturing due to automation.

I think ‘better’ in this case will always be subjective. My experience is that newer horns are easier to play, maybe due to being more efficient in design, but they lack a character to me that older horns made with less automation seem to have. Is that maybe depended on subjectivity, most definitely yes.

I don’t inherently believe one is ‘better’ than the other, it’s again just what an individual player prefers as they are different.

[timbone]

Bach's are a lot like older Zildjian cymbals in a way that they are not real consistent among models, but some horns definitely stand out from the others.