just wondering
GRIZ, Gary L. Kurbis Sr.
WW&BW:
VMI Bass Trombone Bb/F/G/Eb
Item Number: VMI3061
Suggested Retail Price: $2,350.00
Our Selling Price: $1,295.00
Bb/F/G/Eb double independent rotors with traditional style wrap. Comes
with an additional D slide for even more versatility. .563"(14.3mm)
bore, 9.8"(250mm)gold brass bell. Nickel-silver outer hand slide.
I know that VMI makes excellent tubas.
Griz
trombone is good!
Richard Bush
Why in the world would anyone put out a trombone that plays in Bb, F, G
and Eb when what is really needed is a trombone that plays in Gb? Those
Cb's and Gb's are the killers! :-)
Hope all is well with you.
Actikid
>
> Why in the world would anyone put out a trombone that plays in Bb, F, G
> and Eb when what is really needed is a trombone that plays in Gb? Those
> Cb's and Gb's are the killers! :-)
Actually that's a pretty useful combination. There is an age old debate
about which is better, a Gb attachment or a G attachment. You can argue
that either way. The only thing I know for sure is either of them has
more utility than an F attachment. I don't have a bass with the G
valve, but my contrabass has that arrangement (where the second valve
drops the pitch a minor 3rd). I found it pretty easy to get accustomed
to.
I'm not sure how one would go about rigorously proving which valve
system was absolutely the best. One simplified look at it says take at
a starting point where your slide in in first position. Let's say you
are playing a low Bb. Look at what it takes to go from Bb to B, Bb to
C, Bb to Db, etc all the way up to the A below middle C. Count the
total positions traveled.
F att Gb att G att
Bb-B 1 2 3
Bb-C 0 1 2
Bb-Db 4 0 1
Bb-D 3 3 0
Bb-Eb 2 2 2
Bb-F 0 0 0
Bb-E 1 1 1
Bb-Gb 4 0 1
Bb-G 3 3 0
Bb-Ab 2 2 2
Bb-A 1 1 1
Total 21 15 13
Of course, this isn't the complete story. To be really rigorous, you
would have to look at the lower octave, plus you would need to look at
the other 6 starting points for the slide. The above ratios may not
hold up once you look at more cases. But I believe the F attachment is
going to lag behind the others no matter what. As a work saver, the F
attachment isn't too good. But it has the advantage of giving us access
to all the notes except low B.
I really don't understand how the Gb valve came to be the conventional
solution for 2-valve basses. A G valve seems to be at least as good if
not better. The only answers I can think of are:
- A Gb valve sort of allows you to play the low D in first (but it may
be too flat if the Gb valve is in tune on Gb)
- A Gb valve allows you to play "Pedal Bb" on the second partial
without a big stretch. There are some times that is useful.
But other than those cases, it seems to me a G valve would be pretty
strong.
cworth
is very nicely negotiated by use of a G valve.
The most efficient scalar positions being 5-3-G5-G4-d-G6-6-5
Arpeggios ('lines' from the same pitch): G2-1-G2-1-3
(Flat 7th would be 2 instead of 1)
Alan Charlesworth.
cworth
================================
The most efficient scalar positions being 5-3-G5-G4-5-G6-6-5
Alan Charlesworth.
cworth
Actikid wrote:
> There is an age old debate
> about which is better, a Gb attachment or a G attachment. You can argue
> that either way. The only thing I know for sure is either of them has
> more utility than an F attachment. I don't have a bass with the G
> valve, but my contrabass has that arrangement (where the second valve
> drops the pitch a minor 3rd). I found it pretty easy to get accustomed
> to.
>
>
> I really don't understand how the Gb valve came to be the conventional
> solution for 2-valve basses. A G valve seems to be at least as good if
> not better. The only answers I can think of are:
>
> - A Gb valve sort of allows you to play the low D in first (but it may
> be too flat if the Gb valve is in tune on Gb)
> - A Gb valve allows you to play "Pedal Bb" on the second partial
> without a big stretch. There are some times that is useful.
>
> But other than those cases, it seems to me a G valve would be pretty
> strong.
=====================
Online Trombone Journal Forum.
History of Trombone
History of F attachment, 26 Apr 01
Basic Excerpt:
Then someone figured out that the valve tubing for the extended position
could be put on the main branch, and the independent system was developed.
The independent second valve tuning is normally Gb, which is the same length
as the D tuning second (dependant) valve.
Reply by Charlesworth:
Thus we have the best rationale for the overly prevalent independent
Gb-attachment. The design goal was NOT the addition of the most
utilitarian, stand-alone second valve, but retention of position similarity
to the dependent configuration when both valves are used together.
Reply by Jim Prindle:
Actually, I believe the design goal was to improve the quality of tone of
the B natural, bring it closer to first, and get a good sounding low Bb in
dbl. 7th. The original independent valves were in G (double valves produced
Eb). As I know Charlesworth agrees, the G valve is much more responsive,
the double valve notes center better, and the Eb/Db and D/C combinations
(single/double) end up in the same position. But the B was in an awkward
7th, especially when you had to use it quickly with a Bb. Because of the
proliferation of double valve bass trombones, composers and arrangers
(especially jazz and recording) began writing B naturals in the parts more
often.
So technicians started offering longer tuning slides to put the G valve into
Gb, manufacturers started following suit and by the time the Bach 50B3 came
out, they just made it a standard item. Other companies followed suit.
I would like to see it go back to an option to have the valve in either G or
Gb and just carry around the longer tuning slide. It is not that hard to go
back and forth. When I had a single valve, I regularly tuned it in either F
or E with no problem. I played a Bb/F/G/Eb combination for years, and
easily went to the Bb/F/Gb/D combo I have now. I frequently pick up a horn
with the G valve and have no problem with the positions. I just say the
magic word: PRACTICE.
Reply by Charlesworth:
Great reply, Jim.
Your statement of the evolution of the independent 2nd valve tuning sounds
logical to me (a relatively uninformed outsider). I had always thought the
principal concern must have been for emulation of the common stacked F & D
configuration. With an independent Gb, the double valve positions are
retained as they were learned. But not ever having been a real dependent
user, I can make no personal verification of this.
As I remember, the very first inline basses ...
on the West coast, for sure, and (straining my memory),
the East coast, as well (by someone whose name escapes me)
... were by Larry Minick, in F & G. I remember taking my Van Haney to Larry
back in 1974 to have SOMETHING/ANYTHING done about that awful Glantz 'Magic
Bar'. Larry's first step was to leave the valves stacked and make the
triggers independent. This was a great help, but I quickly went back for
the complete conversion. Not having any bias or preference, I got what
Larry gave, inline F & G. And I've been a G advocate for bass (and tenor)
ever since.
For the mass (bass trombone) populace, I think the largest issues of the day
must have been (primarily) B1 and (secondarily) quick transitions to/from
Bb1. Preferring B1's reach from Bb1 to be as short as possible, I can
readily see why the Gb evolved ... it is measurably more advantageous for
those spending most of their time in that register.
But the usually required 'andante' bass technique, enhanced by the immediate
availability of a good B1 -- full chromatics on tap at all times -- is quite
nicely served by the inline G.
And the G's more extensive utility up to its 4th (Benny Leonard would argue,
5th) partial deserves the high regard of all attached trombonists.
Anthony Bartlett
bass trombone, do you use a G second valve attachment or Gb? I use G, and
have never found it to be a problem. Maybe it's just a matter of getting
used to it.
Anthony
"Actikid" <acti...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3B899133...@netzero.net...
GRIZ, Gary L. Kurbis Sr.
If this debate touches on the only reasons, why NOT to buy a brand-new
2x-in-line-rotor, W.German-made, VMI bass-'bone, for $1300.00, this is
the way I'm goin', soon as I clear-up some other business!
Even with conventional valves, it's not going to "stuff-up", @ .5625"
- or I'll put it this way; I won't be able to "stuff-it-up"! That's not
how I intend to slam myself into a FAT 'bone.
In answer to my original question, I'll have to take a ride to So.
Bend, Indiana, to see if it has a nice sound - remember? "SOUND",
"TONE", "MUSIC", "IS IT A PRETTY, MUSICAL TONE?", not to see if I can
win "scale-races" with it! I can push buttons, if I want that, but it
won't sound like the FAT trombone I want! & I feel it is more trombone,
for the same $$ as a standard 88H, or 110H, which I also know, is not an
Edwards, but that's a different world of money, for me.
My silver-soldering is "certifiable" for 6600 volt conductors - I'm
sure I could make a crook, so I would have a "LOW-J"-attachment!
Gary Sliphornist Kurbis
signatures, eas of operation, design-claims, vs price, the industry puts
us into somewhat of a "circle-jerk", when trying to compare them, like
a prudent consumer should!
(like trying to compare last-years tax-book with this-years - they just
make it impossible!)
When one manufacturer's brochure says,
"..with super light-weight slide, for excellent response...", the other
guys are saying, "...features brass - SYMPHONIC slide, to ensure
EXCELLENT RESPONSE...", which would you expect to pay more for?
If a mid-heavy-weight .547" plays "more-open" with a $1200.00 "conic",
"puckic", or "pill-bottlic" valve into an open-wrapped loop, because of
"lowered resistance", shouldn't I be able to lower the resistance, for
much less $$, if I buy .016" bigger, for a mid-light-weight single-rotor
bass-'bone, wih a conventional rotor?
One music co. quotes me $1309, for a standard Conn 88-H, which nobody
would want anymore, because the conventional rotor & the traditional
wrap over the years, made this horn "stuffy", unlike the 88-H, I once
had. Now the same music co. shoots me a quote of $1259, for a Conn
110-H, which has an open-wrapped loop, but (AWE!) still has the
un-trendy (but quicker) conventional valve.
I HAVE played both of these, back to back, & I believe the 110-H, which
is a .5625" bass-'bone, is the lighter-weight horn, AND plays "more
open, with less resistance", AND does it louder, than the 88, using the
same mouthpiece.
Now, what market-steering - I mean acoustic-engineering point did I miss
here? Other than having to buy bigger mutes, a lt.-wt. bass, with a 7-c
should play AS controlled, as the slightly smaller tenor, but has the
extended versatility of actually sounding like a true bass, should I
drop in my Schilke 58 or 60 - for less money.
You'll all tell me that the bass, is just too cumbersome, to be played
delicately! A THAYER-VALVE ISN'T CUMBERSOME? (pulls out my whiskers!) I
almost drop the horn, & wince in pain, everytime I initiate rotation on
the Thayer "FLY-WHEEL"!
But..........
This is all just because, I'm forced to use the "THINK METHOD", like in
the MUSIC-MAN, & yes - I'm jealous of those who don't have to!
THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE 'BONE BUSINESS
Actikid
>
> shouldn't I be able to lower the resistance, for
> much less $$, if I buy .016" bigger, for a mid-light-weight single-rotor
> bass-'bone, wih a conventional rotor?
> delicately! A THAYER-VALVE ISN'T CUMBERSOME? (pulls out my whiskers!) I
> almost drop the horn, & wince in pain, everytime I initiate rotation on
> the Thayer "FLY-WHEEL"!
Well a bass IS more cumbersome. A good player can get something like a
god tenor sound out of a bass when using a tenor-ish mouthpiece, but it
is definitely a lot more effort. I sat next to a fellow in community
band who played a 72H on a middle part. It was always a struggle to get
a balance on softer passages. On the bigger horn, the tone disappears
more quickly, so there is a tendency to play those things one or two
dynamic levels louder.
Having said that, I agree with you that the valves are overrated. If
you get a bunch of horns in the practice room and drive them for hours,
you can certainly identify some differences, but for me a good week of
practice time makes more difference than any valve.
I think the point about Thayers and some of the other advanced valves is
to minimize the difference in feel between open horn and valve engaged.
A good player can easily manage a trigger section that responds a little
differently than the open horn, but the more open valves just make it
easier to play the instrument -- one less complication to keep in mind
while playing.
GRIZ, Gary L. Kurbis Sr.
equivelent?
They seem to have less "Howitzer-cannon"-effect, with their med-lighter
rose-brass bells, than a 72-H, or BONEZILLA, for that matter!
I'm involved in so little section-work, anyway. I'm mainly working with
an "all-reeds & flute-guy", in front of a jazz-quartet, so I've been
playng my trumpet, my little Martin-'bone, & Bonezilla, just for the
constrast of the 2 'bones, the latter of which IS a handful! The 110-H,
or possibly this VMI-2x, would have to be MUCH less work, with nickel
slides!
Incidentally, I just won an auction yesterday, for a 6.5" silver
MARTIN bell-half only - I have 2 extra slide-halves from the same era,
shortly after the Chicago Fire - early Elkhart. $20.00!
Actikid
>
> equivelent?
> They seem to have less "Howitzer-cannon"-effect, with their med-lighter
> rose-brass bells, than a 72-H, or BONEZILLA, for that matter!
I did play a 110 for a few evenings about 9 months ago. A friend was
selling his and I listed it on eBay for him. I actually liked it a lot,
and your description of it is apt. For a commercial sound, I'd
definitely go that direction instead of a Bach 50. Seems like these
horns are priced reasonably by Conn too. In the case of this auction,
the winner got a real gem. It was in absolutely perfect condition, and
I think it went for something like $1450. Hard to beat that.
Yvonne & Norman Rowe
It's a Bb-G-F-Eb (with optional Bb-F-Eb-C or Bb-F-D-B tubing) and I find it
an extremely versatile combination. Bringing 4th position notes to G-1, 5th
position notes into G-2, and 6th position notes into G-3, lots of otherwise
difficult passages become a piece of cake. Should I ever decide to replace
it, I'd get another Bb-G-F-Eb instrument.
"Anthony Bartlett" <tbon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b8a6f8b$0$20923$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...