Use of Trombones in Orchestra

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:48 am

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Apr 23, 2016, 06:56AMSchutz, Scheidt , Schein, the big three who predated J.S. Bach by a very little bit, all were stuck in the same boat that Bach was stuck in. You wrote parts for anyone who showed up, hoped the parts were covered, and if your alto singers were all suddenly struck by bubonic plague the alto parts were covered by which ever instrument showed up to cover the parts. Having assigned parts was an incredible luxury.Actually, Schütz, Scheidt, and Schein were in a much worse position than Bach, since they lived and worked at the time of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1638), which devastated Central Europe (well, Schein died in 1630, so he missed the worst part of it). During this period, the composers did not dispense with specifying instrumental parts, but they did often also give alternative instrumentations.

Quote It is only in modern EDITIONS that separate instruments or indications of instrument are included as a courtesy for performers, purchasers, and music directors.No, that's not quite correct. Parts assigned to specific instruments started to appear in the late 16th century, at first often with alternatives such as violin or cornetto, trombone or bassoon or viola da gamba, etc. It then didn't take long before idomatic violin parts or bassoon parts or trombone parts, etc. started to appear, which were not suitable for performance on instruments other than those specified.

Howard

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:52 am

QuoteQuotec. 1755Vienna, Austria: Georg Wagenseil, court composer at the Imperial Court, writes Concerto for alto trombone (Wigness 19).

1769Vienna, Austria: Johann Georg Albrechtsberger writes Concerto for alto trombone (Wigness 22).
AS I have played both the Wagenseil and Albrechtsberger on alto, and latter on tenor I found the trills are very hard on the alto and very easy on the tenor. I like both better on tenor.

Of course there has been altos around, I played Swedish an alto made in the 17th centuary, actually a good instrument (Sofia church).

Michael Praetoius wrote about the alto versus tenor, he recomended to use the tenor since the high notes on the tenor was just as easy and sounded better. Well?

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:03 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 22, 2016, 02:00AMThis is not apocryphal, it's simply wrong! Bach's predecessor in Leipzig, Johann Kuhnau, did report to the city council in 1702 that the trombones were in bad repair, but they were then replaced.

When did they get replaced? For some reason I cannot not find my copy of Charles Terry's "Bach's Orchestra", and while not the source of the apocryphal story, I distinctly remember him stating that the city of Leipzig refused Kuhanu's request for new trombones. This also seems to be borne out in Will Kimbal's work:

Quote from: Will Kimball1704Leipzig, Germany: Bachs predecessor, Johann Kuhnau, complains to authorities that the churchs trombones are in a battered and useless condition. He requests a new choir of 4 trombonesdiscant, alto, tenor, and bassbut does not receive it (Terry 18).
I am sure the answer is in Terry's book somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find the book.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:12 am

Thanks for the real answer, Howard. My memory is going on conversations long ago with geriatric Anglican organist, and Albert Schweitzer's books on Bach..published in about 1905 I think.

One thing is for certain-- the collected trombone community has had more information published to them in the past 5 minutes, online, than Schweitzer had access to in the entire 19th century complete.

When my prof did his research that led to the manuscripts recorded by Christian Lindberg in the 1980s ( J. Richard Raum)...there was no internet. He had to go on foot to the monastery, find the source, and dig through piles of original manuscripts covered in brown rings.

What were the brown rings from? Well, composers setting down their coffee cups of course!

By 1980 things had improved somewhat for a researcher, but you still had to show up in person and go to the city hall to find the hours of the monastery...and find to your dismay that you had shown up after a journey of 5,000 miles to find a closed locked door on a bank holiday, and had to wait for the town hall to even open, the next day, to make an appointment to see the library stacks.

ttf_Posaunus · Post by **ttf_Posaunus** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:49 am

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Apr 23, 2016, 10:12AMHe had to go on foot to the monastery, find the source, and dig through piles of original manuscripts covered in brown rings.

What were the brown rings from? Well, composers setting down their coffee cups of course!

Possibly coffee - or perhaps monastery ale?

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:55 am

Quote from: BillO on Apr 23, 2016, 10:03AMWhen did they get replaced? For some reason I cannot not find my copy of Charles Terry's "Bach's Orchestra", and while not the source of the apocryphal story, I distinctly remember him stating that the city of Leipzig refused Kuhanu's request for new trombones. My source is an article by Arnold Schering ("Die alte Chorbibliothek der Thomasschule in Leipzig," Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 1 [1918-19], p. 280), who was from Leipzig and had access to the documents (which may or may not still exist). Terry, on the other hand, based his book entirely on secondary sources, and doesn't always cite where he got his information.

In any case, according to Schering's transcription of Kuhnau's 1702 submission to the town council:

"Die weil die Trombonen gute Kirchen Instrumente, die izo vorhanden aber ganz alt und zerbueget sind, daher auch nicht wohl zum Gebrauche dienen, so wäre nöthig daß an deren Stadt andere neue, und zwar ein Paar Discant Trombonen angeschaffet würden: [Hierzu von anderer Hand: 'ist geschehen'.]"

"Since the trombones are good church instruments, the ones here, however, very old and beat up and therefore not suitable to be used, it would be necessary to acquire new ones, and namely a pair of discant trombones, in their stead. [hereto in another hand: 'it has been done.']"

According to Terry: "Kuhnau soon after his appointment, invited (1704) the Council's attention to the fact that the church's trombones were battered and useless from long service. He asked for a new 'choir' of four -- discant, alto, tenor, bass -- and also for a colascione, which, though indispensible, he was forced to borrow. He failed to receive it."

Aside from the fact that Terry's date does not jive with Schering's, the assertion "He failed to receive it" would seem to refer to the colascione, not to the trombones. In general, Terry jumps around quite a bit from one decade to the next and back again, which doesn't make it easy to follow his narrative, such as it is. Not exactly a source I would put much trust in.

Howard

ttf_robcat2075 · Post by **ttf_robcat2075** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:57 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AMI have the distinct impression that Will Kimball created his alto trombone timeline and his list of alto trombone sources in answer to my article...

Sorry, I didn't realize I was opening up a previous academic fracture here. Whoops!

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 pm

Thanks Howard.

I've never been a great student of history. It seems the more you study the recounts, the more contradiction you must deal with.

I agree with your interpretation of the two texts.

Edit: BTW, I love your signature "If you want to become phthisis-proof, drink-proof, cholera-proof, and in short, immortal, play the trombone well and play it constantly." -- George Bernard Shaw

Is there nay more story to that reference?

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:49 pm

I just remember seeing what appeated to be an alto sackbut in Mozart's orchestra in the film "Amadeus". Can you not see the photographic evidence that the alto trombone was indeed a part of the orchestra?

All that money spent getting Einstein to travel into the future to the 80's, in order to take the film crew and english tutors back in time to document real history ... and you pooh pooh the alto trombone. Some people...

And for the naysayers talking about how the trills are harder on alto -- don't forget the C Lindberg had Minnick build his 36H based on an extant alto trombone with Bb attachment. How else would anyone be able to play the Mozart trombone concerto (with it's true third movement that ISN'T actually a string solo disguised as the lost third movement)

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:11 pm

Shaw wrote a lot of music criticism and concert reviews. He was also a big fan of the Trombone when it was being threatened by the new fangled valve "Trombone".

DRB
Seola Creek

Quote from: BillO on Apr 23, 2016, 12:30PMThanks Howard.

I've never been a great student of history. It seems the more you study the recounts, the more contradiction you must deal with.

I agree with your interpretation of the two texts.

Edit: BTW, I love your signature "If you want to become phthisis-proof, drink-proof, cholera-proof, and in short, immortal, play the trombone well and play it constantly." -- George Bernard Shaw

Is there nay more story to that reference?

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:41 am

Quote from: BillO on Apr 23, 2016, 12:30PMBTW, I love your signature "If you want to become phthisis-proof, drink-proof, cholera-proof, and in short, immortal, play the trombone well and play it constantly." -- George Bernard Shaw

Is there nay more story to that reference?
I once went through an edition of Shaw's collected writings and photocopied things pertaining to the trombone, but I seem to have filed them someplace where I can't find 'em right now. I'll keep looking and get back to you in a new thread. Stay tuned...

Howard

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:55 am

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Apr 23, 2016, 05:49PM
And for the naysayers talking about how the trills are harder on alto -- don't forget the C Lindberg had Minnick build his 36H based on an extant alto trombone with Bb attachment.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:02 am

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Apr 23, 2016, 05:49PMI just remember seeing what appeated to be an alto sackbut in Mozart's orchestra in the film "Amadeus". Can you not see the photographic evidence that the alto trombone was indeed a part of the orchestra?

All that money spent getting Einstein to travel into the future to the 80's, in order to take the film crew and english tutors back in time to document real history ... and you pooh pooh the alto trombone. Some people...

And for the naysayers talking about how the trills are harder on alto -- don't forget the C Lindberg had Minnick build his 36H based on an extant alto trombone with Bb attachment. How else would anyone be able to play the Mozart trombone concerto (with it's true third movement that ISN'T actually a string solo disguised as the lost third movement)

Howard

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:54 am

Having watched in horror for a decade here, it is obvious to me that the .547 trombone will not be dying a quick death, as I had hoped. That said-

I predict that by the year 2066, in 50 years time, this discussion will still be raging on TTF. But the discussion will have slipped into the viewing of youtube back to the year 2016, BEFORE all school kids were issued F tuba cimbassos to learn how to play on.

In 50 years time there will be a complete agreement in the low brass world, and all low brass players will play horns pitched in F, with the trombonists playing 4 valve models, and the players claiming to be tubists having 6 or 7 valves.. but everything will be a cimbasso on a`stick.

This whole "slide thing" and mention of "alto" is just a passing fad.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:57 am

In 50 years there will be some kind of electronic gizmo similar to the Yamaha EWI that will provide the exact sounds that the tastes of the era decide are desirable. We may like them or we may not.

And there'll be some old curmudgeon complaining about how it was better when we used our mouths to make the sounds...

ttf_Stewbones43 · Post by **ttf_Stewbones43** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:39 am

Quote from: BGuttman on Apr 24, 2016, 07:57AMIn 50 years there will be some kind of electronic gizmo similar to the Yamaha EWI that will provide the exact sounds that the tastes of the era decide are desirable. We may like them or we may not.

And there'll be some old curmudgeon complaining about how it was better when we used our mouths to make the sounds...

You planning to last that long, Bruce?

I am not!

Cheers

Stewbones

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 1:34 pm

Quote from: Stewbones43 on Apr 24, 2016, 08:39AMYou planning to last that long, Bruce?

I am not!

Cheers

Stewbones

Nope. That curmudgeon is currently 16 years old and is playing the biggest bass trombone he can find with a mouthpiece the size of a toilet bowl (and complaining about parts that are written above the bass staff)

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Sun May 01, 2016 6:27 pm

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AMI have the distinct impression that Will Kimball created his alto trombone timeline and his list of alto trombone sources in answer to my article on the "makeup of the trombone section in 18th- and early 19th century orchestras." I'm not a 100% sure about this, but it is conspicuous that he largely avoids referring to me and my publications.

Be that as it may, Kimball is obviously someone who did not or did not want to understand what I was getting at in the abovementioned article and was therefore rather irritated by it. I remember him referring at one point to "people who don't think the alto trombone ever existed" or words to that effect. This was news to me since I had never heard of anybody denying the existence of the alto trombone, so I had to assume that, in spite of his use of the plural "people," he was talking about me. I also had to assume that he didn't understand what I wrote, because I never said that the alto trombone hadn't existed, but rather had attempted to show that it's use and distribution in earlier times was nowhere nearly as widespread as most people today believe, that there were times and places where it was used, but also times and places where it was not used. One of my conclusions was that the alto trombone was most probably not used in Vienna and the rest of the Habsburg monarchy between the early 17th century and 1883, which of course would mean that what most people today consider the "core" alto trombone repertoire was never actually played on alto trombone. For somebody like Kimball, whose DMA dissertation deals with the alto trombone, this must have represented a threat, so to speak.

Back to Kimball's "alto trombone timeline": Not all of the sources that Kimball cites are relevant to the research that went into my article, which deals with a relatively limited timeframe -- 18th to early 19th century. In order to provide a fundament for my arguments, I did go back further in time to the early 17th century, and after my actual conclusions I added an epilogue with a hypothesis and suggestions for possible future research into the period after the one covered in my article. Especially at the beginning of his compilation of the timeline, most of what Kimball brought forth as evidence for the existence of the alto trombone (which again, I had never called into question) was from the mid to late 19th century, evidence that had no relevance to my arguments. Later Kimball started adding sources that I had already dealt with in my previous publications. So there is really nothing in his alto trombone timeline that has any affect on my findings one way or the other.
Yes! And exactly the point I tried to make in my article.

No, we don't agree. The principle argument employed for assigning these and other works to the alto trombone is that they are in alto clef. But clefs are merely notational devices. I know of many 17th- and 18th-century trombone parts that change clef in the middle of the piece. For example, the two published Bertali sonatas for 2 violins, trombone and bass continuo (musica rara) start out in alto clef, but switch between alto, tenor, and bass clefs. Another as yet unpublished piece even throws mezzo-soprano clef into the mix. If one were to take the clef argument seriously, the player would have to change instruments with each clef change, which is clearly absurd. (Mezzo-soprano trombone, anybody?)

Strangely, nobody has ever remarked upon the fact that the two surviving 18th-century solo trombone parts to the Wagenseil concerto change into tenor clef at m. 98 and back into alto clef at m. 103 of the Allegro movement. An indication of a change of instrument? Very unlikely, in view of the fact that the change back to alto clef takes place in the middle of a phrase.

There are other, musical reasons for playing the Albrechtsberger and Wagenseil concertos on tenor rather than alto trombone, but I'm not quite ready to discuss them now (research in progress). And BTW, the original manuscripts (in the case of the Albrechtsberger, in his own hand) do not specify "alto trombone," but merely "trombone."
It is important to keep in mind here that the terminology, the meaning of "soprano" as well as "alto, tenor and bass trombones" was not the same everywhere. In Vienna, the "alto, tenor and bass trombones" were all B-flat instruments. To quote Andreas Nemetz's 1827 trombone method: "The illustrated bass, tenor, and alto trombone is pitched in B-flat ... the mouthpiece must be different for each of the three types of trombone." Moreover, it is documented that Glöggl senior later sold his collection of instruments to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna. Among the Gesellschaft's collection, which is today largely on display in the Vienna Musical Instrument Museum, are an alto trombone by Jacob Schmidt (Nuremberg 1675) and a quart (actually quint) trombone by Johann Leonhard Ehe (Nuremberg 1732), which may well have been Glöggl's "soprano and quart trombones" (unfortunately, the Gesellschaft's records do not provide information as to when or from whom these instruments were obtained, but for me there is no doubt that Glöggl's "soprano and quart trombones" are in fact the "alto and quint trombones" in the collection today).

Enough for now...

Howard

Wow, that's quite an outpouring, Mr. Weiner! Are you sure you're not the one who's threatened?

ttf_Posaunus · Post by **ttf_Posaunus** » Sun May 01, 2016 10:17 pm

Professor Kimball,

Whether or not Mr. Wiener's arguments are persuasive (they seem reasonable to me - at least worthy of consideration), I can only wonder if you had not previously encountered his historical research and conclusions, and if so why you did not at least acknowledge his thoughts in your publications.

I hope this useful and interesting discussion does not turn into a catfight!

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Sun May 01, 2016 11:48 pm

Quote from: wkimball on May 01, 2016, 06:27PMWow, that's quite an outpouring, Mr. Weiner! Are you sure you're not the one who's threatened? No, not at all! But rather amused (at watching someone trying to disprove something that nobody had ever asserted) and yet disappointed, because I had hoped that my article would make people to think about the issue of the alto (and also the bass) trombone during the period in question and possibly discover information or sources that I had missed -- whether pro or contra my arguments. Unfortunately, in the eleven years since the publication of my article, nobody has come up with any relevant information. The history of the trombone in general and of the alto trombone in paricular remains a puzzle with a lot of missing pieces. I have put the extant pieces together in a manner that I find convincing, and have been able to convince a small but growing number of people. Time will tell if I'm right, but in the meanwhile I'm continuing to search for missing pieces that still might be out there.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 7:48 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AMI have the distinct impression that Will Kimball created his alto trombone timeline and his list of alto trombone sources in answer to my article on the "makeup of the trombone section in 18th- and early 19th century orchestras." I'm not a 100% sure about this, but it is conspicuous that he largely avoids referring to me and my publications.

Mr. Weiner, I beg your pardon. Be careful with your generalizations. This is factually incorrect. I would go so far as to say that my website contains more references to you and your publications than any other personal website in existence! If you conduct even a quick search of the site (search box in upper-right corner), you will find eight separate pages/posts that include clear references to you or your publications. One of those blog posts directly addresses your article and what I feel are its specific weaknesses. The general trombone bibliography contains six references to you, and the alto bibliography contains five. And you would like me to refer to you more?

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 7:56 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AMI have the distinct impression that Will Kimball created his alto trombone timeline and his list of alto trombone sources in answer to my article on the "makeup of the trombone section in 18th- and early 19th century orchestras." I'm not a 100% sure about this, but it is conspicuous that he largely avoids referring to me and my publications.
Mr. Weiner, I beg your pardon. Be careful with your generalizations. This is factually incorrect. I would go so far as to say that my website contains more references to you and your publications than any other personal website in existence! If you conduct even a quick search of the site (search box in upper-right corner), you will find eight separate pages/posts that include clear references to you or your publications. One of those blog posts directly addresses your article and what I feel are its specific weaknesses. The general trombone bibliography contains six references to you, and the alto bibliography contains five. And you would like me to refer to you more?

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:00 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AM
Be that as it may, Kimball is obviously someone who did not or did not want to understand what I was getting at in the abovementioned article and was therefore rather irritated by it.

On the contrary, I believe I understand it quite well, thank you. Be careful with characterizations of your colleagues. I have read it numerous times, checked many of your sources, made extensive notes, and discussed aspects of it with other scholars. I simply do not agree with your logic and your conclusions. It is a non sequitur to say that because others disagree with your conclusions, they do not understand (or wish to understand) your argument. That is faulty logic.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:07 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AMI remember him referring at one point to "people who don't think the alto trombone ever existed" or words to that effect. This was news to me since I had never heard of anybody denying the existence of the alto trombone, so I had to assume that, in spite of his use of the plural "people," he was talking about me.

Lets untangle this a little, Mr. Weiner. Your quotation is absolutely incorrect. Never at any point have I referred to "'people who don't think the alto trombone ever existed' or words to that effect. Again, be careful of your characterizations. This is a clear misrepresentation. Find the quote or the words to that effect. Check your sources and context carefully.

The sentence following your misquote/mischaracterization is a straw man argument. Nobody ever said you were denying the existence of the alto trombone, Mr. Weiner, whether or not the plural people you reference in your fabricated quotation refers to you!

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:19 am

Quote from: HowardW on Apr 23, 2016, 06:03AM
For somebody like Kimball, whose DMA dissertation deals with the alto trombone, this must have represented a threat, so to speak.

You may be giving yourself a bit too much credit, Mr. Weiner. I certainly dont see things the way you characterize them. My dissertation and doctorate were successfully completed in 2001, long before your article appeared, and your article only deals tangentially with the contents of my dissertation. You have published an article that I disagree with because of its logic and conclusions, and I am interested in it because I have done research on the alto trombone, but Im not sure how it could be any kind of threat to me.

Incidentally, what was your doctoral dissertation on, if I may ask?

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:23 am

*** Moderator hat on ***

Gentlemen, PLEASE. Let's not get personal about this. If it degenerates into a cat fight I may have to give at least one of you a temporary ban.

*** Moderator hat off ***

Unfortunately none of us have ever attended a performance of music during the mid 18th century, so we have to act on sources and conjecture. I'm sure alto trombones existed, and were used in at least Church and some Court functions, but we really don't have any firm eyewitness accounts on symphonic performances (at least according to Prof. Weiner).

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:28 am

Quote from: Posaunus on May 01, 2016, 10:17PMProfessor Kimball,

Whether or not Mr. Wiener's arguments are persuasive (they seem reasonable to me - at least worthy of consideration), I can only wonder if you had not previously encountered his historical research and conclusions, and if so why you did not at least acknowledge his thoughts in your publications.

I hope this useful and interesting discussion does not turn into a catfight!

I respectfully beg your pardon--What gave you the impression that I did not acknowledge Mr. Weiner? If you conduct even a quick search of the site (search box in upper-right corner), you will find eight separate pages/posts that include clear references to his publications. One of those blog posts directly addresses his article and what I feel are its specific weaknesses. The general trombone bibliography contains six references to him, and the alto bibliography contains five. There is no personal website in existence that makes more references to Mr. Weiner!

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Mon May 02, 2016 12:56 pm

Quote from: wkimball on May 02, 2016, 08:19AMYou may be giving yourself a bit too much credit, Mr. Weiner. I certainly dont see things the way you characterize them. My dissertation and doctorate were successfully completed in 2001, long before your article appeared, and your article only deals tangentially with the contents of my dissertation. You have published an article that I disagree with because of its logic and conclusions, and I am interested in it because I have done research on the alto trombone, but Im not sure how it could be any kind of threat to me.Oh boy! Talk about an outpouring!

Be that as it may, I did not and do not imply that my article has anything to do with your dissertation or vice versa. What I did mean to imply is that you, along with many who have written dissertations dealing with the alto trombone, probably have a vested interest in the myth that the alto trombone was widely used in during the late-Baroque and Classical periods, hence making it difficult for you to view my work with an open mind.

QuoteIncidentally, what was your doctoral dissertation on, if I may ask?Yes, you may ask. I do not have a doctorate and therefore never wrote a dissertation. Does that make me any less competent as a trombone scholar? My colleagues on the editorial board of the HBSJ, two of whom asked me to assist them with their books on the trombone, obviously do not think so.

ttf_HowardW · Post by **ttf_HowardW** » Mon May 02, 2016 1:11 pm

Quote from: wkimball on May 02, 2016, 07:56AMMr. Weiner, I beg your pardon. Be careful with your generalizations. This is factually incorrect. I would go so far as to say that my website contains more references to you and your publications than any other personal website in existence! If you conduct even a quick search of the site (search box in upper-right corner), you will find eight separate pages/posts that include clear references to you or your publications. One of those blog posts directly addresses your article and what I feel are its specific weaknesses. The general trombone bibliography contains six references to you, and the alto bibliography contains five. And you would like me to refer to you more? I really don't care whether you refer to me or not. But it is conspicuous that my most important (at least in my opinion) articles are not referred to on you website.

I did, however, forget about your blog post, which I just took the opportunity to reread. The ten reasons you give for not finding my article convincing only shore up my conviction that you do not understand or for some reason wish to misconstrue what I wrote. But that's your problem, not mine.

ttf_robcat2075 · Post by **ttf_robcat2075** » Mon May 02, 2016 2:51 pm

Who knew the alto trombone could be so exciting?

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 4:15 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2016, 12:56PMYes, you may ask. I do not have a doctorate and therefore never wrote a dissertation. Does that make me any less competent as a trombone scholar? My colleagues on the editorial board of the HBSJ, two of whom asked me to assist them with their books on the trombone, obviously do not think so.

HBSJ! You sound a bit defensive, Weiner. I was only inquiring about the specific subject of your dissertation so I could make a point about your vested interest, as you did about mine. But since you don't have a doctorate, it's a moot point. In answer to your question, it does not really make you less competent as a scholar (unless you're applying for a full-time university professorship, in which case a search committee--at least the ones I have been on--would be likely to question). But maybe I can still make my point about the vested interest. What was your master's degree thesis on?

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Mon May 02, 2016 7:44 pm

I'm telling you! I saw an alto trombone in Amadeus! That movie won Oscars! An Oscar trumps everything.

You just don't know anything about history, so let me break it down for you:

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then, Einstein went back in time, and hit the self-destruct button on his time-machine spaceship. Thus, the Big Bang was triggered. His Great Sacrifice is thus directly responsible for all the alto trombones that ever existed.

Now this event takes place before (and also after) Einstein traveled into the future to help film Amadeus. He got a two non-fiction film deal in Hollywood -- Amadeus, and Jurassic Park. Both were factual documentaries. It's odd that they picked that Scottish actor to play Einstein in Jurassic park, since Einstein had already built the park, gone back in time for the eggs, did the science, etc. Maybe he was just shy.

But upon the completion of that film, he stopped back in the 80s, as I've said, to film Amadeus and consult for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. It was around this time, talking through the science with Keanu Reeves, that he realized he didn't actually have to use his time machine immediately in order to make changes to the present. So long as he whole-heartedly believed that he would go back in time to make changes at SOME POINT in his future, he could affect his immediate present.

Using this loophole, he decided to create discord in our study if the alto trombone. So long as at some point he would go back in time to leave just enough evidence of the alto trombone (but not too much), then he could at least start seeing it appear in the orchestras again. No sooner had he had this thought, that the major orchestras had alto trombones and used them in way too many works, as if they always had used the alto trombone. Keanu had said "but you still have to go back at some point and plant these alto trombone seeds so that it will happen," to which Einstein replied "but it DID happen, Ted"

His work complete, Einstein boarded the phone booth and went back to universe time "0", and activated the self destruct. Our problem arises from the fact that he broke causality by FORGETTING to seed the alto trombone before creating the big bang. So we're left with false half memories and faded photos, which proves that Back to the Future ALSO got time travel right. And that Kimball and Weiner are BOTH wrong.

Because : Einstein

ttf_Douglas Fur · Post by **ttf_Douglas Fur** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:03 pm

Harrison. Man you're so smart. You completely skotched the old saw that says "military intelligence is an oxymoron".
Excellent explanation. It's so well thought out you can tell it must be true.
DRB
Seola Creek

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:08 pm

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 02, 2016, 07:44PMI'm telling you! I saw an alto trombone in Amadeus! That movie won Oscars! An Oscar trumps everything.

You just don't know anything about history, so let me break it down for you:

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then, Einstein went back in time, and hit the self-destruct button on his time-machine spaceship. Thus, the Big Bang was triggered. His Great Sacrifice is thus directly responsible for all the alto trombones that ever existed.

Now this event takes place before (and also after) Einstein traveled into the future to help film Amadeus. He got a two non-fiction film deal in Hollywood -- Amadeus, and Jurassic Park. Both were factual documentaries. It's odd that they picked that Scottish actor to play Einstein in Jurassic park, since Einstein had already built the park, gone back in time for the eggs, did the science, etc. Maybe he was just shy.

But upon the completion of that film, he stopped back in the 80s, as I've said, to film Amadeus and consult for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. It was around this time, talking through the science with Keanu Reeves, that he realized he didn't actually have to use his time machine immediately in order to make changes to the present. So long as he whole-heartedly believed that he would go back in time to make changes at SOME POINT in his future, he could affect his immediate present.

Using this loophole, he decided to create discord in our study if the alto trombone. So long as at some point he would go back in time to leave just enough evidence of the alto trombone (but not too much), then he could at least start seeing it appear in the orchestras again. No sooner had he had this thought, that the major orchestras had alto trombones and used them in way too many works, as if they always had used the alto trombone. Keanu had said "but you still have to go back at some point and plant these alto trombone seeds so that it will happen," to which Einstein replied "but it DID happen, Ted"

His work complete, Einstein boarded the phone booth and went back to universe time "0", and activated the self destruct. Our problem arises from the fact that he broke causality by FORGETTING to seed the alto trombone before creating the big bang. So we're left with false half memories and faded photos, which proves that Back to the Future ALSO got time travel right. And that Kimball and Weiner are BOTH wrong.

Very nice! I'll have to use this with my university students!

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:12 pm

Can we please get away from these credential fights and get back to the real question?

I've seen good research by a High School kid who was whip smart and had access to good source material.

I've seen lousy research by a PhD who was conjectural without providing support.

I don't care how many degrees Howard Weiner has or has not; nor do I care how many you have or have not.

I want to know whether Beethoven used an alto trombone for that miserable lick in the 5th Symphony. Or the equally miserable one in the 9th.

There is some evidence that an F-bass trombone was in use about this time with some works by Weber having a low Eb. But nobody has written a review saying that "the three trombones used were an alto, a tenor, and a bass". In fact, probably most critics couldn't care a rat's patootie. Just gearheads like us Trombone players.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:13 pm

Quote from: wkimball on May 02, 2016, 08:08PM
Very nice! I'll have to use this with my university students!

You may, sir.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:18 pm

Quote from: Douglas Fur on May 02, 2016, 08:03PMHarrison. Man you're so smart. You completely skotched the old saw that says "military intelligence is an oxymoron".
Excellent explanation. It's so well thought out you can tell it must be true.
DRB
Seola Creek

It's at least as provable as the other ideas about alto as well as the FSM.

No idea if you were clowning, but I definately am having fun! And I love the Alto!

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 9:13 pm

Quote from: BGuttman on May 02, 2016, 08:12PMCan we please get away from these credential fights and get back to the real question?

I've seen good research by a High School kid who was whip smart and had access to good source material.

I've seen lousy research by a PhD who was conjectural without providing support.

I don't care how many degrees Howard Weiner has or has not; nor do I care how many you have or have not.

No, no, it's not a credentials fight. You've misunderstood. As I said, I am trying to make a point about vested interests and research. My point is that the fact that I did my doctoral research on alto trombone does not mean that I therefore have a vested interest in alto trombone and therefore cannot be trusted to talk about the subject (any more than it would mean so for research Weiner did during his doctorate or master's or what-have-you).

David Hackett Fisher discusses this kind of reversible proof or reversible reference in his excellent book, Historians Fallacies. Essentially, it says that the fact that I did my dissertation on the alto trombone can be used as a proof against my current research, as Weiner does, or a proof for my research. The proof is therefore nonsensical and logically invalid.

ttf_sfboner · Post by **ttf_sfboner** » Mon May 02, 2016 10:46 pm

Bruce, I agree with Mr. Kimball post directly above mine. Yes, there is a hot dispute occurring, but I don't find the posts on either side to be over the line. Just my opinion.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 11:18 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2016, 01:11PM
I did, however, forget about your blog post, which I just took the opportunity to reread.

Thank you, I appreciate that admission.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Mon May 02, 2016 11:29 pm

Quote from: HowardW on May 02, 2016, 01:11PMThe ten reasons you give for not finding my article convincing only shore up my conviction that you do not understand or for some reason wish to misconstrue what I wrote. But that's your problem, not mine.

Again with the errors in logic. I'm glad you've convinced yourself, Mr. Weiner. That's always nice. But it means nothing as a logical premise. You're in the same place you were before with your earlier non sequitur. You're convinced yourself, therefore what? Therefore I don't understand? Another non sequitur!

And, of course, you're the one making the argument; the burden of proof is yours.

ttf_sfboner · Post by **ttf_sfboner** » Tue May 03, 2016 12:30 am

As an active orchestral trombonist who plays quite a bit of alto, what I've learned from this discussion is to look closely at the applicable facts as I see them, and feel comfortable reaching my own conclusion regarding whether or not the alto is appropriate for any particular work. I find the research of both of these gentleman to be of interest. And though I can't say he has swayed me in all of the cases he makes, Mr. Weiner's writing has certainly prompted me to look a bit more deeply when drawing my conclusion.

ttf_vegasbound · Post by **ttf_vegasbound** » Tue May 03, 2016 12:41 am

Alto trombone = doubling fee !

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Tue May 03, 2016 3:08 am

Quote from: vegasbound on May 03, 2016, 12:41AMAlto trombone = doubling fee !

That´s it!

ttf_svenlarsson · Post by **ttf_svenlarsson** » Tue May 03, 2016 3:19 am

Quote from: BGuttman on May 02, 2016, 08:12PM

There is some evidence that an F-bass trombone was in use about this time with some works by Weber having a low Eb. But nobody has written a review saying that "the three trombones used were an alto, a tenor, and a bass". In fact, probably most critics couldn't care a rat's patootie. Just gearheads like us Trombone players.
Bruce, low Eb does not prove anything. It is descibed in 1618 (syntagma Musica) what positions is used on tenor to play what we now often say is fake tones. When I studied with Carl-Otto Naesen (1960) the sc false positions where part of the lessons, in the military band latter all trombonists could use them. The low Eb has been played on straight tenors for ages. That certainly does not prove that the low F bone was´nt used. But we don´t know when and how much.

ttf_Edward_Solomon · Post by **ttf_Edward_Solomon** » Tue May 03, 2016 7:00 am

Instead of this pissing contest, could we get back to the history of the trombone? I can't see how any of these pages of fruitless argument advance anyone's knowledge or understanding of the history of the trombone.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Tue May 03, 2016 7:13 am

Quote from: Edward_Solomon on May 03, 2016, 07:00AMInstead of this pissing contest, could we get back to the history of the trombone? I can't see how any of these pages of fruitless argument advance anyone's knowledge or understanding of the history of the trombone.

I would be happy to. And I do appreciate the fact that I was allowed to come on and present my side after I felt I was misquoted and mischaracterized on this thread.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Tue May 03, 2016 7:15 am

Quote from: sfboner on May 02, 2016, 10:46PMBruce, I agree with Mr. Kimball post directly above mine. Yes, there is a hot dispute occurring, but I don't find the posts on either side to be over the line. Just my opinion.

Thanks, much appreciated.

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Tue May 03, 2016 8:38 am

Quote from: Edward_Solomon on May 03, 2016, 07:00AMcould we get back to the history of the trombone?

Absolutely. Here you go.
Three separate first-hand accounts within 5 years of each other in the early 19th century: http://kimballtrombone.com/2016/05/03/three-british-travelers-1825-1829-snapshot-trombone-history/

ttf_wkimball · Post by **ttf_wkimball** » Tue May 03, 2016 9:07 am

Quote from: wkimball on May 03, 2016, 07:13AMI would be happy to. And I do appreciate the fact that I was allowed to come on and present my side after I felt I was misquoted and mischaracterized on this thread.