Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ??

[ttf_Birdy]

Quote from: EarlNeedham on Nov 30, 2007, 06:49AMHey Birdy, how did the trip to the Schilke factory turn out?  Did you see anything really interesting there?  Find maybe a Schilke 59 with a wide rim?  Curious minds want to know! 



You'd like to think there'd be some kind of development, but no, they seem to be happy producing variations on a theme on the 51............

BTW our tenor guys didn't rate the 'bone they've just developed.

The guy who looked after us said that although he wants to develop a Bass bone there, market forces are dictating a smaller bore tenor first.

I don't think they'll look at bass bone mouthpiece development before creating a bass bone. Mind you, could be way off the mark here, there's only so much info you can glean in a couple of hours.

Ah, he did pass me a piece that had a 59 rim with a 60 cup. It was too big for me, felt like the Yeo, so Ididn't pay much attention to it. I'd have thought that wide rim wise, you've got to be looking at the Rath 1/14. Me? I'm well happy with the 58. I think I might have finally found what I was looking for...............

[ttf_EarlNeedham]

Quote from: Birdy on Nov 30, 2007, 06:16PMAh, he did pass me a piece that had a 59 rim with a 60 cup. It was too big for me, felt like the Yeo, so Ididn't pay much attention to it. I'd have thought that wide rim wise, you've got to be looking at the Rath 1/14. Me? I'm well happy with the 58. I think I might have finally found what I was looking for...............

Yeah, my story as well -- used a copy of a Schilke 59 for many years, and also the Yeo, but today I use an old Marcinkiwicz George Roberts Model, and it's exactly how I've wanted to sound for so long and didn't know how to get there.

There are a lot of us using a bit smaller stuff these days.

Thanks for the info!

[ttf_Thomas Matta]

I've played a 1-1/4G, then moved up to a larger Doug Elliot, then to a Schilke 60, then to a Schilke Vernon model (pre-commerical version) with no leadpipe, went back to a Schilke 60 with a leadpipe, and have been playing a Griego .5 most recently.

But all this talk of a Bach 1-1/2G intrigues me, so I ordered one today. Can't wait to try it out - I have never played on one...

[ttf_BGuttman]

The other day I was subbing into a Prep School orchestra for their Winter Concert, which included Nutcracker Suite.

Since I was the only trombone, I had "choice" of parts to play, which meant I added a couple of notes from 2nd Trombone to the 1st part, and played the Bass part to Waltz of the Flowers (with 4 notes from the 1st part).  During rehearsal the bass part seemed "thin" playing on my Yamaha 682 with Shires 1G bell, so I grabbed my Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 G for the concert.  What a great match for these parts!  Not as dense as a bass trombone, but well suited for the "light" orchestra.  Gotta remember to keep that thing more available instead of burying it in my Euphonium case!

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Thomas Matta on Dec 13, 2007, 12:03AMI've played a 1-1/4G, then moved up to a larger Doug Elliot, then to a Schilke 60, then to a Schilke Vernon model (pre-commerical version) with no leadpipe, went back to a Schilke 60 with a leadpipe, and have been playing a Griego .5 most recently.

But all this talk of a Bach 1-1/2G intrigues me, so I ordered one today. Can't wait to try it out - I have never played on one...

Ah Ha !!! Lured to the compact side 
Two words of warning... or perhaps more....
It's MUCH harder to move smaller than to move bigger...
On A-B comparisons, you won't like it... so you have to keep at it...
Try one Bach 1 1/2G and you've tried one Bach 1 1/2G.
Perhaps, after the Mt. Vernons, the best 1 1/2G readily available is the Greg Black.
Let's see how you get on... you may need some personal attention 
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_CRWV]

Don't make the mistake I did.


I made a great decision (as hindsight has shown) in switching from my laskey 95D to a 1 1/2G.

The mistake was switching less than a month away from seating auditions at school. It ended not mattering because I had no competition, but still. It was bad. 

Theres something about that sound though...

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 13, 2007, 03:42PMDon't make the mistake I did.


I made a great decision (as hindsight has shown) in switching from my laskey 95D to a 1 1/2G.

The mistake was switching less than a month away from seating auditions at school. It ended not mattering because I had no competition, but still. It was bad. 

Theres something about that sound though...


Yup.... so it's very hard for a full time pro like Thomas to make this sort of move.. there's always important work in the book and you can't let standards drop.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Thomas Matta]

I'm pretty good at making switches - not very good at playing smaller mouthpieces, I must say, however! Had a heck of a time playing a 6.5AL on my 42B last week - yikes!

But my normal mouthpiece I pair with my 42B is a Bach 2G, so playing a 1-1/2G shouldn't be too much of a switch - it's the playing it on my BASS and still expecting (hoping!) for good sounds and results that might frustrate me!

[ttf_Birdy]

Quote from: Thomas Matta on Dec 14, 2007, 01:00AMI'm pretty good at making switches - not very good at playing smaller mouthpieces, I must say, however! Had a heck of a time playing a 6.5AL on my 42B last week - yikes!

But my normal mouthpiece I pair with my 42B is a Bach 2G, so playing a 1-1/2G shouldn't be too much of a switch - it's the playing it on my BASS and still expecting (hoping!) for good sounds and results that might frustrate me!

Just out of curiosity, have you tried the 2g with your bass?

It may give you an idea as to whether the 1.5g size is really for you.

I'm positive you'd still get a great sound with it, just different.

I changed approximately 2 months ago. For me the biggest thing I had to get used to was not forcing the air down as quickly as I did with the Yeo. I much prefer the sound on the compact, seems to have more core to it, plus I don't need to overblow at loud dynamics to get the required 'zing' into the sound, thus not overpowering those around me. I've pretty much got my low register back to where it was before the switch as well. Out of the 1.5g and Schilke 58, I've settled on the 58, purely because it feels more comfortable at the end of a 2 hour gig than the 1.5g.

[ttf_Matthew Guilford]

I use a Bach 1.5 G, but only when I play tenor.

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 14, 2007, 01:21PMI use a Bach 1.5 G, but only when I play tenor.

Thanks for that insight. Is there anything else that you would like to share ?

Chris Stearn.

[ttf_savio]

My problem when going to 1 1/2 size mouthpiece was the bad feeling it had on my lips. No honeymoon there. If I had not make a record of my playing I would still played the 59 size. The sound did feel the same as my lips, very bad, but the record was so  different from my feeling. And my lips feels better day for day with this size. Slowly but still.........its fun. I also have to make my warm-up more carefully.

The sound I get is the main reason for my change.  Its hard for me to describe, but very shortly.......its more bass trombone.

Leif

[ttf_grub]

Matt, do you do a lot of tenor playing?
-->grub

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: savio on Dec 14, 2007, 05:00PMMy problem when going to 1 1/2 size mouthpiece was the bad feeling it had on my lips. No honeymoon there. If I had not make a record of my playing I would still played the 59 size. The sound did feel the same as my lips, very bad, but the record was so  different from my feeling. And my lips feels better day for day with this size. Slowly but still.........its fun. I also have to make my warm-up more carefully.

The sound I get is the main reason for my change.  Its hard for me to describe, but very shortly.......its more bass trombone.

Leif

What you are saying is a very common reaction.... to the player, at least when you first change, the sound seems less full and rich... but you were wise enough to record your sound and hear that it was more dense, complex... and trombone-like. It's a realization that many have had in recent times. I'm not saying that it's the answer for everyone, but a lot of people are finding that they prefer the results they get with this mouthpiece...
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Thomas Matta]

Good point, Chris.

I think there is a renaissance brewing, of bass trombonists wanting to blend more with the tenors - especially (but not exclusively) in the commercial / big band styles.

And it is not just about the mouthpieces. Look at the Kanstul George Roberts model - I'm not the only one drooling over such a trombone, am I?

[ttf_David A Bratcher]

Quote from: Thomas Matta on Dec 15, 2007, 01:27AMGood point, Chris.

I think there is a renaissance brewing, of bass trombonists wanting to blend more with the tenors - especially (but not exclusively) in the commercial / big band styles.

And it is not just about the mouthpieces. Look at the Kanstul George Roberts model - I'm not the only one drooling over such a trombone, am I?
I have one of the Kanstuls.  And I just switched to more of a 1 1/4 size mouthpiece if not quite a 1.5 yet.  Good combo for sure. 

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Thomas Matta on Dec 15, 2007, 01:27AMGood point, Chris.

I think there is a renaissance brewing, of bass trombonists wanting to blend more with the tenors - especially (but not exclusively) in the commercial / big band styles.

And it is not just about the mouthpieces. Look at the Kanstul George Roberts model - I'm not the only one drooling over such a trombone, am I?

I blew a George Roberts Kanstul at the 2006 Frankfurt Musickmesse... it was the best blowing bass at the show...by miles... hard to tell about the sound, but if I had the cash, that horn would have gone home with me... gave as much back as my Conn Fuchs.
It's funny, in orchestras here in the UK, the big gear sound has never really caught on... perhaps Bob Hughes has had a lot to do with that.... and guess who first stuck a Conn 60H under his nose ? 
As for the tenor/bass blend thing, I find that if I play one of my Conns, I feel closer to the tenors (who are usually on old Conns in the UK), whereas the Holton tends to live closer to the tuba. In a way, I prefer to color the tuba sound... and I have been lucky to sit next to a succession of world class tubists... it's so nice to be within that carpet of sound and provide the bite and definition for it. Ever since I heard Frank Mathieson and John Fletcher in the LSO back in the '70's it's a concept that I have loved.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Thomas Matta]

I play so many odd little jobs where there are only two, sometimes three bones in the section. Like tonite - a crazy talent show put on by Chicago's lawyers, with singing, dancing, all sorts of silly little acts. Two bones, where the 2nd bone is sometimes a bona fide bass bone part, but mostly in the staff - like a third trombone in a big band.

I figure the 1.5G would have been the no-brainer choice tonite. With a single valve bass, even better!

[ttf_blast]

An interesting trend that I've noticed recently is the willingness of many trombonists in the commercial field to choose equipment for an engagement that relates to that originally used, when the music is pre 1950's, whilst orchestral trombonists are happy to use equipment that is miles away from that originally used for 90% of their repertoire.
I'm not advocating a museum approach... but we do seem to be distorting many composers intentions to an unacceptable degree.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_CRWV]

QuoteI'm not advocating a museum approach... but we do seem to be distorting many composers intentions to an unacceptable degree.
Chris Stearn.
Ya know, Is that more of a problem with equipment choice or playing?

the discussions we've had (you guys have had, i've read) on bruckner come to mind.

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

Quote from: blast on Dec 15, 2007, 04:54AMAn interesting trend that I've noticed recently is the willingness of many trombonists in the commercial field to choose equipment for an engagement that relates to that originally used, when the music is pre 1950's, whilst orchestral trombonists are happy to use equipment that is miles away from that originally used for 90% of their repertoire.
I'm not advocating a museum approach... but we do seem to be distorting many composers intentions to an unacceptable degree.
Chris Stearn.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01045.html

[ttf_blast]

Orchestras and loudness.... simple... mostly the problem is with the multitude of sub-standard, bass-light, analytical halls built in the last 100 years. If you work in such a hall, you have to find equipment that makes your life easier.... them the kids find out about your mega hooter and mega mouthpiece and buy replicas... even though they play in the school gym and it's bath-tub acoustics.... and the arms race continues...
Better get back to 1 1/2G talk.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Ellrod]

I played a dance with a big band on Saturday night and, instead of a Kanstul Geo Robt's that I've been working on I plugged the Bach 1 1/2G in.  Worked well with my Getzen 1052.  I played maybe my best impro. bass trombone solo ever on a couple of the rock/Basie shuffle numbers.

Having worked on my low range on the slightly large mpc, it's still there when I come back to the 1 1/2.

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: Ellrod on Dec 17, 2007, 09:23AMHaving worked on my low range on the slightly large mpc, it's still there when I come back to the 1 1/2.

After 4 months of back to the 1-1/2 (Rath 1-1/2W) I find the low range not so much more work just less forgiving below pedal D than a 1-1/4, not much of a trade-off to get the sound in my head, and there's the advantage of a easier high range.  I had a chance over the weekend to trade a Ferg. L for a Rath 1-1/2 with the narrow rim.  Due to Christmas gigs I only played it about 5 minutes, it's interesting...

[ttf_blast]

The Rath 1 1/2 and 1 1/2W are totally different mouthpieces, not just different rims. I've come across fine examples of both.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_CRWV]

What I don't get is why is the range below  8vb an issue? How often do we really have to play double trigger pedals outside of teele stuff?

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: blast on Dec 17, 2007, 10:37AMThe Rath 1 1/2 and 1 1/2W are totally different mouthpieces, not just different rims. I've come across fine examples of both.
Chris Stearn.

Thirty minutes of playing the 1-1/2 today affirmed that to me.  I thought that was the case from something I read somewhere, probably from you.  The first impression is that it reminds me of what I remember about the Bach 1.5G I played in the 70's in college.  Perhaps after I spend more time with it I'll post my thoughts on them.

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:07PMWhat I don't get is why is the range below  8vb an issue? How often do we really have to play double trigger pedals outside of teele stuff?

Well lets say, for arguments sake, 2%. Now if you're an amateur that 2% doesn't mean much, to a pro however, that 2% can be the difference between keeping that gig and, more importantly, getting called back on future gigs from that contractor. The real difference, I think, is how pros tend to deal with this kind of issue; using focused, specific practice to resolve the issue, compared to how an amateur might resolve the problem; making an equipment change. Of course a pro does not have the luxury spending several weeks with compromised sound, where most amateurs do not have that pressure. I think the bigger reason is that pros have much more confidence in their abilities and what it takes to resolve issues in their playing compared to an amateur player.

[ttf_CRWV]

Is there really anything written that low in ensemble music?

[ttf_Gabe Langfur]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:07PMWhat I don't get is why is the range below  8vb an issue? How often do we really have to play double trigger pedals outside of teele stuff?

I have had to play below pedal F several times. In most cases, what was written was ridiculous. In all cases, I had to do something close enough to be convincing.

I spent a long time playing mouthpieces around the size of a Schilke 59. After lots of Teele long tones I could finally get close to a usable low pedal register, but I couldn't maintain it without hours of long tones I don't have time for anymore. That's a big reason I play a bigger mouthpiece now.

[ttf_Dan H.]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:55PMIs there really anything written that low in ensemble music?

The McCarty Sonata for bass trombone goes to a pedal E. I've had to play pedal Eb's a couple of times in a trombone ensemble. One piece even called for a pedal D.

In one of the Gillis etudes there is a pedal Eb written, as well.

So while rare, the stuff exists in literature.

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:55PMIs there really anything written that low in ensemble music?

I have played some x-mas stuff written down that low recently. Personally, I tend to focus my playing on solo literature. The John Williams Tuba Concerto has pedal F's all over the place. I can say I have played pedal tones in at least one piece in the last 3 recitals that I have done.

[ttf_bonesmarsh]

The 5-string electric bass now goes down to BB, instead of E.

I play lots with a huge choir. When the 5-string player is replaced with a 4-string player and the choir is used to hearing a pedal Db, then IN it goes. And, the advantage to having usable pedals down there, is that there isn't the huge DECAY inherent in some 5-string electric bass sounds.

Lots of modern choir "worship" music uses the pedal tones in the tuba parts as well to double the 5-string electric bass. No tuba on the gig? You guessed it! Bass trombone parts down to double pedal BB.

Its just a colour.

[ttf_BassBoneFL]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:07PMWhat I don't get is why is the range below  8vb an issue? How often do we really have to play double trigger pedals outside of teele stuff?

To paraphrase a point Mr. Kleinhammer made in a lesson more than once, if your job is to go out on stage, lift 200lbs over your head and make it look easy, you'd better work out with 300lbs at home.

[ttf_Burgerbob]

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Dec 17, 2007, 08:26PMThe 5-string electric bass now goes down to BB, instead of E.

I play lots with a huge choir. When the 5-string player is replaced with a 4-string player and the choir is used to hearing a pedal Db, then IN it goes. And, the advantage to having usable pedals down there, is that there isn't the huge DECAY inherent in some 5-string electric bass sounds.

Lots of modern choir "worship" music uses the pedal tones in the tuba parts as well to double the 5-string electric bass. No tuba on the gig? You guessed it! Bass trombone parts down to double pedal BB.

Its just a colour.

Whoa there! are you sure about that? i can understand maybe down to a double pedal BBb, but a double pedal BB is almost an octave lower. I think you mean just pedal B.

[ttf_RGbasstrb]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:55PMIs there really anything written that low in ensemble music?

See "Wagner"

[ttf_Jox]

Maslanka Symphonies........(and they are mostly wind ensemble stuff)
Solos. I have solos where almost all go PEdal F or below.
Trombone Choir stuff gets low too. I had to play the contrabass trombone part once to a song.


Yes they are uncommon but I dunno. I just love playing them

[ttf_blast]

Playing down to double pedal Bb should be a thing that you can do whatever mouthpiece you are playing on. It is possible on a 1 1/2G or even a 2G for that matter... though as Gabe says, you have to put in a bit of work to do it... about the same amount as big mouthpiece players put in to keep an upper register 
I find that I can 'cut through' more easily down there on the smaller mouthpiece. Contrabass parts should be played on a contrabass... with the correct size of mouthpiece for such an instrument. A whole lot of fun can be had on one of those.
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_sabutin]

Quote from: blast on Dec 18, 2007, 01:25AMPlaying down to double pedal Bb should be a thing that you can do whatever mouthpiece you are playing on. It is possible on a 1 1/2G or even a 2G for that matter... though as Gabe says, you have to put in a bit of work to do it... about the same amount as big mouthpiece players put in to keep an upper register    ---snip---
Well when you get right down TO it...double pedals and below are available on all trombone m'pces.

I practice them regularly on 11Cs, .500 bore instruments and even smaller m'pces and horns.

Do they sound "good"?

No...but they help the overall embouchure no end.

Bet on it.

And about this low note requirement for bass trombonists.

In a mainstream, corny-assed B'way musical...the Lion King... there are a BUNCH of sub-pedal notes in the bass trombone parts.

Remember my motto in such cases.

QuoteAny fool can write something that you cannot play.
And its corollary as well.

QuoteAny contractor and/or conductor can REQUIRE that you be able to play it as a prerequisite to your employment.
You have to make your decisions accordingly.

Are you involved in an art, a craft, or some combination of the two? And if your answer is the third possibility, then what are the proportions of that combination?

How far will you go...MUST you go...to get work? Can you specialize in the low range without losing so much upper range and trombone timbre that you no longer function very well as a blending 3rd or 4th voice in a section?

Can you afford to do this?

Can you afford NOT to do this?

It's all about compromise.

Same with upper register.

I have played with any number of extreme upper register brass specialists. Some quite musical in their concept and approach. Not a ONE of them were really competent as players below about the 4th partial. Not really. I mean...they could play the notes, most of them, but not with a truly fine sound.

So it goes.

You can't have everything, so y'pays yer money and y'takes yer chances.

So it goes.

I make my living as a lower brass doubler. From tuba right on up to high jazz lead. I have a middle ground where I live fairly comfortably...say from the middle pedals up to F above the treble clef...and I have middle equipment that I prefer to use when I am not in extreme circumstances. But when I have to play for extended periods of time in extreme ranges, I choose equipment that will help me to do so, and if I do it for any length of time, I lose my real focus, sound and control on the opposite end of wherever I have been playing. On ALL of my instruments. I can get it back, because I know what I am doing to some degree.

But it happens to everyone.

If you have the knowledge, you can moderate some of those extreme range effects.

But they're in there, baby.

They're in there...

Bet on it.

Later...

S.

[ttf_slidejj]

Quote from: CRWV on Dec 17, 2007, 07:07PMWhat I don't get is why is the range below  8vb an issue? How often do we really have to play double trigger pedals outside of teele stuff?

I see below pedal F, down to pedal C, fairly regularly though not often.  In the 70's in college I had to have a solid pedal D, on a Bach 1.5G too.  After not playing bass for years, the 1.25ish size helped me "cheat" in the low range when I got back into it, but now I'm back to the size I learned with and haven't sacrificed the low register; but as Chis and Gabe said I have to practice it more.  I also find, like Chris, that for me it's easier to cut through with the 1.5ish piece.  I also agree with Sam, the low pedals can be played on tenors and should be, like the high range should be practiced on bass.  That's what I'm learning as a doubler.

[ttf_Matthew Guilford]

Sorry for my earlier drive-by post. It has been a crazy month.

When I mentioned that I do play a Bach 1.5 on tenor, I was being truthful. I actually played principal trombone for the National Symphony Christmas Pops concerts last week, playing on a Bach 42G (Thayer) and my 1.5. As a bass player,
I am so accustomed to a large mouthpiece that the Bach 1.5 does feel small to me.
My tone on tenor will suffer if I play anything smaller than a 2. While I do not play a great deal of tenor, the 1.5 size seems to be a good fit for me.

Incidentally, when I started on bass trombone, the Bach 1.5G was king. It was my mouthpiece for about 5 or 6 years from junior high school until my freshman year of college. From there, I graduated to a Bach 1G, then a Schilke 60, followed by a Doug Elliott, a Greg Black and finally to the Monette Prana which I have used
for the past decade or so. As you see, my mouthpiece size has increased over the years but the evolution and adjustment period to each new 'piece has been quite slow.

Frankly, there are much better mouthpieces on the market now than what Bach has to offer. The template of the 1.5G has been copied and improved upon by many, so I would seek out those makers who have perfected this size with greater accuracy
and craftsmanship.

[ttf_BassBoneFL]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 21, 2007, 09:52PM I actually played principal trombone for the National Symphony Christmas Pops concerts last week, playing on a Bach 42G (Thayer) and my 1.5.

Dude...I hope they gave you hazardous duty pay !!

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 21, 2007, 09:52PM As you see, my mouthpiece size has increased over the years but the evolution and adjustment period to each new 'piece has been quite slow.


What do you think it is that has drawn you to a larger piece? Do you think it has to do with physical construction of the various cavities used in playing? Sometimes I wonder if it has to do with a player's philosophy on air movement and how they decide to create and handle the resistance needed to produce sound.

[ttf_CRWV]

Quote from: BassBoneFL on Dec 21, 2007, 10:05PMDude...I hope they gave you hazardous duty pay !!

I can only think of that picture where the low brass is killing themselves playing, and the caption just reads "bruckner 7" as you warm up on your 1.5G to play first bone and look in horror as your folder for the day shows Bolero, Beethoven 5, and shostakovich 5 lol. (not to insult, for me that would be my "at school with no pants" sort of nightmare)

[ttf_blast]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 21, 2007, 09:52PMSorry for my earlier drive-by post. It has been a crazy month.

When I mentioned that I do play a Bach 1.5 on tenor, I was being truthful. I actually played principal trombone for the National Symphony Christmas Pops concerts last week, playing on a Bach 42G (Thayer) and my 1.5. As a bass player,
I am so accustomed to a large mouthpiece that the Bach 1.5 does feel small to me.
My tone on tenor will suffer if I play anything smaller than a 2. While I do not play a great deal of tenor, the 1.5 size seems to be a good fit for me.

Incidentally, when I started on bass trombone, the Bach 1.5G was king. It was my mouthpiece for about 5 or 6 years from junior high school until my freshman year of college. From there, I graduated to a Bach 1G, then a Schilke 60, followed by a Doug Elliott, a Greg Black and finally to the Monette Prana which I have used
for the past decade or so. As you see, my mouthpiece size has increased over the years but the evolution and adjustment period to each new 'piece has been quite slow.

Frankly, there are much better mouthpieces on the market now than what Bach has to offer. The template of the 1.5G has been copied and improved upon by many, so I would seek out those makers who have perfected this size with greater accuracy
and craftsmanship.

Thanks for getting back Matthew.
You do indeed represent the successful American professional playing on large equipment and making it work. I can hardly expect you to put aside the many hours it would now take you to read the whole of this thread, but I can assure you that this is far from being a 'smaller is better,Bach is better' thread... it's more complex than that.
I think we both know that it's no big deal to use a 1 1/2G to play tenor... I do so myself, because it saves me a lot of time and I can get away with it in sound terms. I've known people throughout my career who use this size in the tenor.... very few of them, it's true... but it can work for a small number of tenor full time tenor players.
This thread started off shortly after Ed Kleinhammer had been quoted in the ITA magazine as saying that the 1 1/2G size of mouthpiece no longer has a place in the symphony orchestra. I was playing this size of mouthpiece, and so were many of the players I most admire... so I thought it was time to start a debate.
Professionals are the tip of a huge iceberg of bass trombone playing, and I suspected that many players were struggling on equipment that was unsuitable for them, for what they do and for the sound they have in their heads. Through the course of this
thread it has become apparent that for many, this is indeed the case. Many who play for just a few hours each week are finding a step smaller of great benefit to sound and control, whilst a few who earn their crust with the horn have re-discovered what this size can do for them.
This is hardly going to derail the modern American school of bass trombone playing... but it might give a few people the confidence to dare to be different... if that is what really suits them and their tonal concepts.
I'm back where I started as a kid... after gradually getting bigger to the point of spending 15 years on the Schilke 60, via a few other big boys and back to the 1 1/2G size. Perhaps it's a journey that I needed to make... but I think a lot of it was about an image that I thought I needed to have.
Small mouthpieces work for me on the bass. They don't work for you Matthew... but I think we're both fine with that. I'd like others to choose on the basis of results, not hype... either way. That would be healthy.
As for the actual Bach brand, I still feel that the mouthpieces made at Mt Vernon were quite exceptional, and if you find the right one, in terms of character,they outshine even the best modern versions... not easier to play.. but they have a special quality.. and I speak as someone who has designed 'improved' 1 1/2Gs. The Rath 1 1/2W for instance, works better over all ranges, projects better, is more slotted... but has a slightly different sound quality... for some it's better than the old Bach, but others demand the original.... and prices of MV 1 1/2Gs are reaching Monette levels !
Chris Stearn.

[ttf_Daniel Harris]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 21, 2007, 09:52PM
When I mentioned that I do play a Bach 1.5 on tenor, I was being truthful. I actually played principal trombone for the National Symphony Christmas Pops concerts last week, playing on a Bach 42G (Thayer) and my 1.5.

Frankly, there are much better mouthpieces on the market now than what Bach has to offer. The template of the 1.5G has been copied and improved upon by many, so I would seek out those makers who have perfected this size with greater accuracy
and craftsmanship.

So Matthew, I hope you won't mind the obvious question: if you think there is better out there, why do you continue to use the Bach 1.5G, even in the limited circumstances you describe?

Dan Harris 

[ttf_Matthew Guilford]

In earnest, I use a Bach 1.5 on tenor because it is familiar and it works. I play a tenor perhaps 3 or 4 times each year, so the need to research the perfect mouthpiece is not a pressing concern for me. I know that there are better craftsmen out there-Doug Elliott is just down the road-who have spent considerable time, effort and funds into bringing us a better product than the major manufacturers. If I had the time and/or inclination to do this research, it would be with one of the more artisanal
mouthpiece designers. I am open to suggestions.

Very funny, Harold. Yes, there was hazard pay, of sorts. Principal players do tend to make more $$ than us bottom feeders. The change of pace was refreshing and a good time was had by all.

I play on a very big bass trombone mouthpiece, a Monette BT1 Prana. I have been playing in major orchestras for over 20 years, and I have a pretty good idea of what I need to do my job at the highest level. In short, I must take into consideration my section blend, the acoustic of my home concert hall, my music director's directives, the repertoire that I play, what feels right to me, and so on. I did not decide one day, "hey, I need a big honkin' piece", and neither should anyone. If you hear me play with my orchestra, you will hopefully hear a sound which integrates well into the fabric of the ensemble, which is my ultimate goal as a team player.

Chris, thank you for getting me up to speed on this thread. I have to side with Mr. Kleinhammer on this. I see no trend toward down-sizing in the American orchestra
brass player's equipment choices of today. More efficient and better tuning? Certainly. Smaller? Hardly ever. Funny, the best stringed instruments are hundreds of years old and will evolve very slowly over time , yet we continue to use technology to enlarge our sounds on brass instruments only to be given the left hand palm forward (SHHHHHH!)by most conductors. Still, I would have to imagine that Mr. Kleinhammer is talking about major American symphony orchestras and not all symphonic ensembles. In the major U.S. symphony orchestras, and I have played with a few, the brass are putting out some major sound. That trend may not suit smaller orchestras with with string sections who can not compete with the girth of brass sound that is capable on modern instruments.

[ttf_slideorama]

Quote from: Matthew Guilford on Dec 22, 2007, 08:59PMI have to side with Mr. Kleinhammer on this. I see no trend toward down-sizing in the American orchestra
brass player's equipment choices of today.
Funny how most of us prefer the way Kleinhammer sounded on the Reiner recordings...obviously, its very possible to sound fantastic on "classic" equipment.

I've downsized...playing a Conn 60H with mouthpieces in the 1.5G ballpark. I feel that my equipment serves most of the music I play better than "modern" instruments and mouthpieces. The next few months I have have some Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Shostakovich, and Mahler symphonies coming up. None of those composers would have wanted anything more than what Kleinhammer was producing 50 years ago. Not to mention Ellington, Basie, etc. or any orchestral pops concert, where a "modern/American" sound becomes tedious and somewhat silly.

Now, if I could only convince all the tenor players in town to trade in their 3G's and 50B LT slides, some nice sounds might start to happen.

Happy Holidays!

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

We all have different needs and masters that we serve, so our equipment reflects this. The example we have is both Chris and Matt have similar jobs, yet vastly different mouthpiece choices based on what is asked of them by the music director, section, audience and others. Neither large or small is the right choice for everybody. What I hope players would get out of this thread is: 1)Start with a small piece that is manageable. 2) Make haste slowly. Give yourself time to develop. 3)Make mouthpiece changes for musical reasons.

[ttf_GetzenBassPlayer]

Quote from: slideorama on Dec 22, 2007, 09:46PMFunny how most of us prefer the way Kleinhammer sounded on the Reiner recordings...obviously, its very possible to sound fantastic on "classic" equipment.



Happy Holidays!

Yes, I do like how Edward sounds on his recordings. Also like Charlie, Blair and Matt too. To me they all sound great in the musical settings in which they are all playing. While music is written by composers, it is performed for audiences and their tastes. This surely guarantee's that there will be different takes on what is an acceptable sound. Contemporary bass trombone playing does not have to equate to overbearing. Overbearing can be done on any horn and is a musicianship issue. I think of it as a darker, wider thicker sound than in other parts of the world.