Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1088635 Posts in 71947 Topics- by 19313 Members - Latest Member: nelewis
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumHorns, Gear, and EquipmentMouthpieces(Moderators: BGuttman, Doug Elliott) 2G or not 2G ? That is the question.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 2G or not 2G ? That is the question.  (Read 4220 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
blast

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: scotland
Joined: Jul 26, 2001
Posts: 6995
"Bass/Contrabass trombone, Scottish Opera."


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Aug 08, 2017, 02:40AM »

Thank you, Chris for clarifying.

Real bass trombone sound (old 2G):
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAtaAwXgYME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P102lmwZJFE

Perfect bass trombone sound (old 1 1/2G):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dayQIQZtRxo





Two of the all time greats.... and interesting that those sounds are not so far away from each other. I heard Ray play many times and it was even better live than any recording.

Chris Stearn
Logged

Still cannot think of anything better to do. Back on an old 1 1/2G again !
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 5124

View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: Aug 08, 2017, 03:32AM »

I have noticed one thing with the 60h Chris. I think the 2g is in fact a little better match in that one then the 1 1/2g. Not much but I believe it is so. Maybe Bob Huges also discovered that in his 60h and 62h.   Strange thing for me is that both low and high register is about the same on all sizes. Not much difference for me.

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
bigbassbone1

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles, CA
Joined: Sep 7, 2012
Posts: 972

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: Aug 08, 2017, 03:33AM »

Mouthpieces do not DO anything.... they ALLOW the player to do things. The player creates the sound. I have found with my students that moving to a 2G has allowed them to make a darker richer sound (in the conceptual context we work in here) .
For some stupid and frustrating reason, the bass mouthpieces made by Bach in the NY and MV years allow great sounds and have a great feel and have yet to be replicated in a meaningful way.... some are close... none are there... even those stamped Bach.
I think we have to accept that most Americans and most Brits are on a completely different page with equipment and concept. You can admire a musician even if you don't want to sound like them..... look at traditional sports cars in the UK and US... Corvette Stingray v MGB.... the 'vette is all about power for big long straight roads.... the MGB is gutless but goes round bends and is small enough for our little windy roads.... each is great in it's own setting... each is a puzzle in the wrong place.

Chris Stearn

I will freely admit that I have difficulty understanding all this. Not being American or British, I am not intimately aware of the major gear differences so I can't really comment too much on that.

All those recordings provided are of course excellent, but I can't help but roll my eyes at the terms "real" and "perfect" bass trombone sound. I can put what I like about each recording into subjective terms, but I think seeing as there are so many amazing bass trombone sounds from all over, calling those real and perfect is misleading, for lack of a better term.

I couldn't agree more when you said that "mouthpieces do not DO anything they ALLOW the player to do things" but where I get confused is here; I don't have any direct experience playing MV 1/2's or 2's so I can't speak from any playing experience on them, but do you think you could elaborate on how those mouthpieces allow you to achieve a certain sound? I mean, I don't really see much difference between this post and another hyperthetical one saying something like "Finally got a Laskey 95D today. I can finally get a sound close to what I hear on Charlie Vernon recordings".

I think I can speak pretty confidently in saying that if someone said they wanted to buy a Laskey 95D so they could sound like Charlie Vernon, hoards of people would waste no time here telling them that's not going to help them. You don't get a bigger sound on a bigger mouthpiece etc... Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.

It's super exciting to find a mouthpiece that makes creating the sound in your head through the instrument easier. I don't see how playing a MV would make you sound like those recordings any more than a Laskey 95 would make you sound like Charlie Vernon.

In a way I am hoping that I have misunderstood the meaning behind a lot of these posts because I am always receptive to learning new things on how to improve my own trombone playing.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51276
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Aug 08, 2017, 03:58AM »

I think the gist of this is to be against the "bigger is better" trend among bass trombone players today.

At one time the Bach 6 1/2 AL was considered a "bass trombone mouthpiece"! :)

The 2G was popular 40 years ago, although I will say that when my father went into Manny's in the mid 1960s and asked for a bass trombone mouthpiece for me they sold him a 1 1/2 G (I still have it, although I don't play it much any more).

I can also say that whether I play a 2G, 1 1/2G, or whatever, I won't sound like Chris (or even you).  The arrow doesn't make the Indian.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
bigbassbone1

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles, CA
Joined: Sep 7, 2012
Posts: 972

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Aug 08, 2017, 04:12AM »

I think the gist of this is to be against the "bigger is better" trend among bass trombone players today.

At one time the Bach 6 1/2 AL was considered a "bass trombone mouthpiece"! :)

The 2G was popular 40 years ago, although I will say that when my father went into Manny's in the mid 1960s and asked for a bass trombone mouthpiece for me they sold him a 1 1/2 G (I still have it, although I don't play it much any more).

I can also say that whether I play a 2G, 1 1/2G, or whatever, I won't sound like Chris (or even you).  The arrow doesn't make the Indian.

Absolutely. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, and I know it is extremely difficult to convey a point and tone through text on the internet but I definitely get the impression from several posts that in this context some people seem to think the arrow does indeed make the Indian.


I have said something like this before in a different thread, but a few posts here give the impression that if you play this sort of gear you will get the "sound of the bass trombone" whatever that means. I feel like there are implications in certain posts that say if you don't play, or strive to play this kind of gear then you don't understand what a bass trombone is supposed to sound like.... which simply isn't true.
People are of course welcome to their opinions, that's half the fun in playing and listening to music, but I can't help but raise my eyebrows when I read things saying "perfect bass trombone sound".
Sorry to use that as the example to whoever posted That, again I'm not talking about anyone or any post specifically just a couple here and there.
Logged
Alex
*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 1278

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Aug 08, 2017, 04:40AM »

I have used mouthpieces of various sizes from Schilke 58 to Yeo. I have been using a Rath 1.25W for a long time now, but have a 1.5W I have been switching between recently having got a new bass.
What I find on all the mouthpieces I have played is that I still make the same sound, but with slight tweaks to certain overtones. Its a bit like playing with a persons sound on a mixing desk.
For me, the biggest difference when I try my 58 or 1.5W isnt so much with how I sound as an individual, but more how I hear myself within the section.
I tend to prefer how i hear myself in the section when using the 1.5W or 58 regardless of what type of ensemble, however, I personally prefer my individual voice on the 1.25W.
As I get older I listen to the players around me a lot more and I think I have a better understanding of my role in the ensemble. To my ears, I can hear how smaller can be a good fit.

When we go back and look at old recordings of players like Ray Premu and George Roberts, I think it is important to remember the equipment that was available at the time, and how it would have played a big role on the mouthpieces they used (imo). Its probably also interesting to know where their sound concept came from. I think GR said he was influenced heavily by Urbie and tried to be a bass version of his playing. That in itself might force him to choosing a certain type of equipment.

At the professional end of the scale, a bass player may well be making his equipment choices because of who he plays with. Trying to make his section sound its best and that might mean a 2G and a 60h. However if that same player got a new job in a new country with a new section, I wouldn't be surprised to see their equipment choices change.
At the amatuer end of the scale, play what makes you continually enjoy making music. If you get booked for gigs then you must be on the right track and if you keep getting asked back, then your equipment choice is probably just fine.
 
Logged
MoominDave

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Posts: 3371

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Aug 08, 2017, 05:17AM »

The mouthpiece doesn't make the player; that we know for definite! And we also know that you'll sound like yourself, whatever your equipment.

But Alex's point is spot on - within that "Aha, that's so-and-so playing" aural response, a response that owes at least as much to the player's habits of articulation as it does to composition of overtones in the sustain, there's a wide spread of tonal qualities available. A particularly handy tool to manipulate these qualities is the choice of mouthpiece.

I have had the pleasure of close-up listening to Chris's bass trombone artistry on several time-separated occasions. On at least one of these, he was using his Elliott 116M set-up in his collection of wonderful bass trombones. On the most recent one, he was using his MV 1-1/2G. Although both were Chris-type sounds, there was a large distance between them, and his description of the change upthread tells us this.
Logged

Dave Taylor

(me, not the other one)
Geezerhorn

*
Offline Offline

Location: PA
Joined: Feb 9, 2012
Posts: 5571
"Lego My Trombone"


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Aug 08, 2017, 05:18AM »

The arrow either does or does not make the warrior.

...Geezer
Logged
Slidennis

*
Offline Offline

Location: Europe
Joined: Dec 29, 2003
Posts: 2344

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Aug 08, 2017, 05:28AM »

Why did I have to see this thread?????? :cry:

 :D :D :D    ;-)

Why not be back on the tenor?
My current way, and on a 6 1/2 AL...    Hi
Logged

Denis
Dukesboneman

*
Offline Offline

Location: Sarasota, Fl
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 1450

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Aug 08, 2017, 05:39AM »

I`m a doubler. Primarily a Tenor player. I play a single trigger bass (Yamaha 321) I`ve tried a number of Bass mouthpieces trying to find one that really works for me.
1 1/2G - NO  Schilkes - NO   2G - really close    Yamaha 58 - BINGO !!! I know that it`s real close to a 2G but the rim feels best to me. Good lows and good highs
Logged

“Where words leave off, music begins.”
― Heinrich Heine
bonesmarsh
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 2218

View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Aug 08, 2017, 05:47AM »

Sometimes analogies work to explain things--

The 2G works wonderfully in some horns for some players for the following reason: You can stick a 4 l. ( 1 gallon) sized funnel into a tiny garden hose and it'll fill the hose pretty poorly and not very quickly. Stick a much smaller funnel into that tiny hose and the hose will fill at the same rate, but the funnel will be more efficient.

Sond aside, and vintage sound aside, a 1 1/2G or 2G works very well on some horns because they are mated very well.

All the mechanics aside, a young student would be able to learn quickly and with proper mechanics to play the horn on a 2G. Most young students struggle to play a huge mouthpiece, as they should, as it is a large tool designed for experienced well muscled players who have lots of proper mechanical/muscular support to play the huge gear.
Logged
bigbassbone1

*
Offline Offline

Location: Los Angeles, CA
Joined: Sep 7, 2012
Posts: 972

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Aug 08, 2017, 06:18AM »

Sometimes analogies work to explain things--

The 2G works wonderfully in some horns for some players for the following reason: You can stick a 4 l. ( 1 gallon) sized funnel into a tiny garden hose and it'll fill the hose pretty poorly and not very quickly. Stick a much smaller funnel into that tiny hose and the hose will fill at the same rate, but the funnel will be more efficient.

Sond aside, and vintage sound aside, a 1 1/2G or 2G works very well on some horns because they are mated very well.

All the mechanics aside, a young student would be able to learn quickly and with proper mechanics to play the horn on a 2G. Most young students struggle to play a huge mouthpiece, as they should, as it is a large tool designed for experienced well muscled players who have lots of proper mechanical/muscular support to play the huge gear.

So if the size causes such an issue for young players, does that mean that teachers should discourage young players from leaning the tuba until they have experience and development on a smaller instrument? Or is that different? That is massive gear, and I have both seen and heard some incredible young players on tuba.
Logged
Gabe Langfur

*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston, MA, USA
Joined: Apr 9, 2000
Posts: 4987

View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: Aug 08, 2017, 07:33AM »

So if the size causes such an issue for young players, does that mean that teachers should discourage young players from leaning the tuba until they have experience and development on a smaller instrument? Or is that different? That is massive gear, and I have both seen and heard some incredible young players on tuba.

No. A tuba is a tuba, and a trombone, bass or otherwise, is a trombone. It only makes sense to start a kid on a smaller, more manageable version of a tuba, just as we do on trombone.

That said, I've seen some clear advantages to kids starting on a smaller brass instrument. I had a high school student this summer who started on trumpet with a great teacher, and he's set up with about the most perfect embouchure I've ever seen - easy range with focus from pedal F to double Bb with no apparent shifts or manipulations. The great teacher is probably the most important factor, but...this is a topic for a different discussion, I'm sure.
Logged

Gabe Langfur
Bass Trombonist
Rhode Island Philharmonic
Vermont Symphony
Rodney Marsalis Philadelphia Big Brass

Trombone Faculty
Boston University
Kinhaven Music School
Wellesley College

S. E. Shires Artist
donn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Seattle
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
Posts: 620

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Aug 08, 2017, 08:03AM »

Another long lost gem is the Conn Connstellation 3B. 2G in size, but deeeep and conical, not bowl shaped.

I have a Conn 3B with a diameter noticeably larger than my 2G, though it isn't easy to compare because of the sloping inner edge of the Bach vs. the sharp Conn edge.  It's a little deeper.  I wonder if the Conns changed over the years?  Mine doesn't say "Constellation".

My other Brown & Sharpe shank mouthpiece is a Reynolds 2B, and that's very close to my 2G in size.  The cup is much more conical and a little shallower;  rim is not sharp but not as unnecessarily round as the Bach.
Logged
bonesmarsh
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 2218

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Aug 08, 2017, 07:11PM »

Thank you, Gabe, a beautiful reasoned response. As for beginner tubists?-- it is a conical horn, not cylindrical, and nobody expects a beginner tubist to have four octaves range to cover their parts. For the most part if a beginner tubist can cough up 1 1/2 octaves they are a hero.
Logged
Eyedoc
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 15, 2015
Posts: 53

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Aug 08, 2017, 10:36PM »

May I ask the question, is the Rath B 1 1/2 a copy of Chris' beloved MV 1 1/2 G?
Logged
blast

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: scotland
Joined: Jul 26, 2001
Posts: 6995
"Bass/Contrabass trombone, Scottish Opera."


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Aug 08, 2017, 11:56PM »

May I ask the question, is the Rath B 1 1/2 a copy of Chris' beloved MV 1 1/2 G?

Simply...no.
The B1 1/2W is a copy of a wide rim MV 1 1/2G that I own. The B1 1/2 was done away from me. All Raths have their own style bores and backbones so none are really copies.

Chris Stearn
Logged

Still cannot think of anything better to do. Back on an old 1 1/2G again !
fsung
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 3, 2007
Posts: 382

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Aug 09, 2017, 05:14AM »

[OT RANT]

So if the size causes such an issue for young players, does that mean that teachers should discourage young players from leaning the tuba until they have experience and development on a smaller instrument? Or is that different? That is massive gear, and I have both seen and heard some incredible young players on tuba.

Although I violently disagree with the practice, starting young (middle school age) players on small instruments seems to be becoming the norm, at least in public schools in this area, in beginning band circles these days, where, for the first year (in some cases, two), instrument choices are restricted to trumpet, trombone, clarinet, flute, and percussion, and once the quota for a particular instrument is filled, you have to choose something else. (Now THERE'S a brilliant way to inspire a prospective band kid: "Sorry, we already have our quota of trumpets, trombones, percussion, and clarinets: wanna play flute?" >:( >:( >:() They can change to a different instrument after a year (if they're still around), but it still has to be one of the "approved" instruments. Only in Year Three can they choose something not on the list.

In my cynical moments, I think it's a move to cut, if not ultimately eliminate, the music/arts budget from public schools ("Band enrollment and player retention keeps dropping, so why are we wasting money on band?"); in my somewhat less cynical moments, I think it's a reflection of the sorry state of Music Ed degree programs (band director can't teach a beginning ____ player the rudiments if s/he can't play/never played ___ her/him-self).

[/RANT]
Logged
wgwbassbone
*
Offline Offline

Location: West Hartford, CT
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 1862

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: Aug 09, 2017, 05:45AM »

Simply...no.
The B1 1/2W is a copy of a wide rim MV 1 1/2G that I own. The B1 1/2 was done away from me. All Raths have their own style bores and backbones so none are really copies.

Chris Stearn

Chris do you know the differences, besides the wider rim, between the Rath B2 and B2W?
Logged

Holton TR 180 MV 1 and 1/2G
blast

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: scotland
Joined: Jul 26, 2001
Posts: 6995
"Bass/Contrabass trombone, Scottish Opera."


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Aug 09, 2017, 07:04AM »

Chris do you know the differences, besides the wider rim, between the Rath B2 and B2W?

That's fairly easy... The B2 was a copy of a great MV Bach 2G..  with Rath throat and backbone.. . The B2W started out as a B2 to which was added a very wide rim which I re-shaped to be in the style of the Ray Premru rim.

Chris Stearn
Logged

Still cannot think of anything better to do. Back on an old 1 1/2G again !
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: