Talk:Types of trombone

message: In regards to:
* Kang, Mandip  (2006). The Performance Edinburgh: Scottish Music Foundation.
"Scottish Music Foundation" and "Kang, Mandip" Trombone only returns hits to this article and mirrors.  "Mandip Kang" Trombone returns no hits.  Im running out of ideas. John Vandenberg 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference was propagated when the article was split.  I researched the article Trombones and found that the ref had been added by 88.106.9.39. Seems to be vandalism. Check this diff and this diff by this user. I have removed the reference from both articles. --DRoll 10:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats strange, as that users other contributions dont appear to be problematic.  Anyway, if not vandalism, it was certainly senseless.  Nice work. John Vandenberg 10:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid ISBN 

message: as a moderately serious amateur player in the northeast US, I've been playing a large bore symphonic tenor with F attachment (a Conn 88H) since the mid-80's and have never heard anyone call this sort of instrument a "tenorbass" trombone.  where is this terminology still in use?  --Sommerfeld 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tenorbass"? 

message: I believe that the term "tenorbass" is no longer in use, but once referred to a slightly larger version of the common tenor trombone. This tenorbass trombone was slightly smaller than the bass, so it became known as the tenorbass. I realize this is very helpful, but I do know that the term was used in the 20th century. Obsolete10 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Seems like it would be better to rewrite the article to highlight the terminology currently used.  I'll tweak in that direction. --Sommerfeld 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to Tenorbass??? 

message: What kind of mouthpiece does a soprano trombone use? A friend says all trombones use the same size mouthpiece but this seems impractical. Badagnani (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely doesn't use a tenor mouthpiece.  I believe it uses a trumpet mouthpiece, though it may use something nearly identical.  Small-shank tenor pieces can be used on alto, but most players have a hard time finding a single mouthpiece that works well for them on both horns. This is all OR, though... - Special-T (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouthpiece 

message: I'm removing the tag (template) that states that the neutrality of the article is in question. (I've poked around the policy and template pages and can't find anything that says this is a no-no.) The edit summary upon adding that tag says that some descriptions may be derogatory.  I've just read through the article and can't see any support for that. - Special-T (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality? 

message: :Image:Slidepos.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Slidepos.gif

message: The very notion of a valve trombone sounds like an oxymoron. Could somebody add a photograph of one? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valve Trombone Photo? 

message: I'd love for someone with knowledge and a citation to clear this up.  Does anyone currently make a distinction between the two? They're (mainly) cylindrical slide instruments pitched in Bb and played with a trumpet mouthpiece. The histories of how a slide trumpet and soprano trombone came about are different, though.  I have no idea if any of this is even correct - it's mostly uncited stuff from Wikipedia, and conversations with knowledgeable brass players. - Special-T (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soprano trombone = slide trumpet? 

message: A request originally at Talk:Pitch (music) where it got no reaction:
: In the article Types of trombone you find this way of specifying pitch: 12' F, 18' B, 9' B, etc. I suppose this is akin to the organ foot system (as in an 8' rank, a 16' rank, etc.). I'm sure readers who are only slightly familiar with trombones will be puzzled, like me, by this system, so this more general system used for trombones (and other brass?) should be explained somewhere in WP.
Contact Basemetal here 15:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some clues may be found at Organ stop and Eight foot pitch.  I agree that this probably isn't the best way to explain how the trombone works.  Tayste (edits) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, if you know that an 8' C is C2 then you may attempt to guess and guess that the 12' F is probably F1 and that 9' B is probably B1 (or should this be B1?). But first of all this guess may well be wrong. Is the trombone half-tube or whole-tube? Does length and pitch correlate like for organ pipes? And besides we shouldn't have to guess. Someone who knows should provide that information explicitly in WP. That would spare us having to scratch our heads and wonder. Contact Basemetal here 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This way of specifying pitch should be explained somewhere on WP 

message: This article has annoyed me for years.  For almost every other type of musical instrument, there is a separate article for every minor variation. Is it time to split this article into its components? There should be separate articles for alto trombone, tenor trombone, bass trombone, contrabass trombone and valve trombone. Then we can delete this article, or at least drastically cut it down to size to include only material relevant to comparing the types with each other. Anything left that is about the trombone in general (or rarer beasts) can be put into Trombone if not already there.  Tayste (edits) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splits - separate article for each type 

message: I know this might be difficult to pull together, but if the photos were retaken with a yardstick or some other object next to the instrument, readers would get a better indication of the size of the instrument. 173.19.233.252 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale of Photos 

message: I'd like to suggest that a few other prominent trombone oriented orchestral works be mentioned:
Mahler "Symphony Number 3"; movt. 1: With its feature of the principal trombone all through the first movement, and the section soli adjoining it, the trombone dominates here.  This is a serious audition piece for those wishing to work in a symphony orchestra.
Ravel "Bolero" - which features, along with many other instruments of the orchestra, a couple of repeated themes.  On trombone it's very "high tessiatura" playing and thus is considered a defining moment in professional playing.  This passage is easy to botch and thus also appears on most orchestral audition lists. Also the work features prominent glissandi (loud "smears") at the ending climax section. 
I cite this from academic and professional experience. These are well known items in the trombone playing community. Also, I'm not attempting to be exhaustive, but to add a couple of very big items. 
(talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include OTHER works for trombone? 

message: I've merged in our entire Cimbasso article. It is clearly a type of trombone, and the amount of content that we have can easily fit within this article as a section. I am not opposed to splitting it out again if someone has a significant amount more content to add. Mamyles (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged from [[Cimbasso]] 

message: http://www.virtuosityboston.com/p-601-c-mahillon-calvary-trombone.aspx calls the Sax-style valve trombone a "cavalry trombone". Is this a common-enough usage to include in the article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalry trombone 

message: I removed the (recently changed) range info for sopranino & piccolo trombone - they seemed inaccurate. If you're familiar with these rarely-used instruments, please add accurate range info. - Special-T (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sopranino & piccolo ranges 

message: As articulated here already by @Tayste (2015) I think a summary of this article should go in Trombone and the rest should be split into individual articles and linked, and this article be deleted; the opposite of an article merge, I guess. It seems ridiculous that Cimbasso should redirect here, for instance; I see @Mamyles was only trying to help at the time but it's just highlighting how strange it is. Cimbasso should absolutely have its own article, and defer to information in the Trombone and Tuba articles where necessary. No other principal instruments of the orchestra have their articles organised this way. It seems to be an artefact of Wikipedia's article coverage and notability priorities having evolved with time, particularly since the original decision was made in 2007 to split it out from the main Trombone article. Just to add some quasi-empirical evidence for this position, and to highlight the possible disservice this arrangement makes for the ease of finding, accessing and presenting the information on Wikipedia about instruments in the trombone family, compare these two lists:
* Articles that exist: flute, piccolo, alto flute, bass flute; oboe, cor anglais, bass oboe; clarinet, clarinet d'amore, piccolo clarinet, basset horn, alto clarinet, bass clarinet, contrabass clarinet; trumpet, piccolo trumpet, bass trumpet, slide trumpet(!); tuba, Sousaphone, contrabass bugle(!); soprano saxophone, alto saxophone, tenor saxophone, baritone saxophone, bass saxophone, contrabass saxophone.
* Articles that don't exist: types of flute, types of oboe, types of clarinet, types of trumpet, types of tuba, types of saxophone.
Therefore, I suggest that the following articles have every right to exist, deferring a fair amount of the content of this article and trombone into:
* tenor trombone, bass trombone, contrabass trombone, valve trombone, cimbasso; and possibly even soprano trombone (not merged with slide trumpet!)
I think it's decision time... a "request for unmerging" discussion; I'll investigate the process in the next few days when I get a bit more time. — Jon (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (replying to myself) obviously this will be a fairly huge editorial task, spanning several articles at once; I'm not suggesting doing anything in a sudden rush! :-)   — Jon (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I definitely agree on the need for unmerging and deleting this article!  It's gonna be a big project so it would first require the committment and organisation of several users together.  It would be worth sounding it out in the wider wikipedia community to get suppport from places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments, Wikipedia:Village pump and the like.  Tayste (edits) 03:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article is probably overlong, and would benefit from splitting out into trombone for the casual reader who just wants to know more about it, and the individual ones for people who want to go more in-depth to a particular instrument, perhaps one they've encountered or seen that's not the standard tenor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: But just to reiterate, I don't know the exact process we need to record consensus for reorganising the articles, as it's not a straightforward split or merge; I gather this is required, partly so that the editing histories are preserved when pages are moved. The input of an admin or someone knowledgeable about such things would be appreciated. Jon (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support: I see no problems with this line of thinking. It seems perfectly reasonable to split. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholeheartedly Support. When I created the  template for brass instruments, I was surprised to see that of all the trombones, only the freakin' superbone had its own article. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started with the cimbasso page! I think it, bass trombone (with contrabass in the same article), and alto trombone can have their own pages, but everything else may stay on this page.  Why? I Ask (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much! I am not sure how to proceed with preserving the history, which I see the cimbasso article has retained. Also, I have been really slammed for time. I think ultimately, whatever is left on this page after splitting out the separate articles should be re-incorporated back into the trombone article, and we just remove this page (once all the redirects are fixed). Jon (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you just make this page a redirect, it should save the page history (I believe). Why? I Ask (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I've moved it into article space to fend for itself. Over the next few days I intend to find references from Herbert and Guion, HBSJ, Galpin etc. My Herbert and Guion books are supposed to have arrived by now, but Covid shipping delays to NZ, I'm guessing... I'm having to make do with searching the Google Books versions instead, which is slowing me down. — Jon (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I"m a bit concerned. You've gone ahead and split out the articles, however 1, the consensus wasn't ever decided (I see 2 support !votes but I'd like to see more people !vote to determine a consenus), and 2, one of the articles is lacking in citations. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with it. It's doubtful anyone has opposition, so why not be bold? And per WP:NEXIST, I'm not too worried about the poorly sourced ones (they were just unmerged, after all). There's plenty of good literature about these instruments, and it seems silly to have the trombone be the only major instrument with one "master page" of the types. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do make a good point. At the very least Tenor Trombone should have a separate article since it's probably the most common type of trombone (I either see a straight tenor trombone or a tenor trombone with an F attachment). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The bass trombone, alto trombone, and cimbasso all also have very important musical literature and research written about them. I have an entire Google Drive folder containing research about the bass trombone alone! Why? I Ask (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself have never heard of an alto trombone or cimbasso outside of Wikipedia, however I'll take your word for it that they are important. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi  - feel free to throw that together on the bass trombone article - the range and repertoire sections are thin and unreferenced, and there's almost no mention of jazz or popular music (rock, shows, etc.) Also, I'm curious, is your Drive folder in a shareable state?! :-) Cheers — Jon (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jonathanischoice: I plan to add some sources when I get a chance, but I have been rather busy lately. Any suitable orchestration book should be able to cover the range, and here are a few sources for repertoire (solo and early orchestral). (.) I have more, but this should give you something to work with for now! (Also, most of the stuff in my folder regards big band arranging, but I don't wish to share it because it's on a personal account.) Why? I Ask (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Hello - apologies if I have been a little too bold or enthusiastic. My thoughts on the tenor trombone article is that it would redirect to trombone, and possibly an appropriate section of that article, explaining that the tenor trombone is probably what most people unfamiliar with the instrument would be thinking of when looking up the term "trombone" - it is the most common type (followed by bass trombone). However this would be a departure from simply un-merging the types of trombone article, which is why I haven't done anything yet; it surely warrants further discussion first. — Jon (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think making seperate pages for the various trombones makes sense, to a point. I do think the tenor trombone article should redirect to the standard trombone article, and that the bass, alto, and maybe contrabass trombone and cimbasso should have their own articles, since there is a repertoire for them. But making articles for stuff like the soprano, sopranino and piccolo trombones becomes progressively less worthwhile as they become progressively less useful, so there's not much out there about those trombones. Daniels688 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree that several types do not warrant separate articles; soprano and smaller, as you suggest. Also arguably, superbone and even valve trombone, which could be treated as variants, and in the "Construction" section, perhaps. I really don't think we need even mention the "tromboon" on notability grounds. I've managed to find only a tiny number of modern works calling for soprano trombone (Brian Ferneyhough calls for two in Plötzlichkeit), and we have Howard Weiner's article "The Soprano Trombone Hoax" (Historic Brass Society Journal, January 2001, 13:138-160) debunking Kunitz about anything much other than usage in Moravian choirs. I imagine that the text of this types of trombone article would be merged back into the main trombone article as a "Types of trombone" section, containing only 2-3 sentence summaries of each instrument, with a  link to any separate articles that exist. — Jon (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is easily enough information on the soprano trombone to warrant a separate article (with sopranino and piccolo being covered with it); its growing popularity within the jazz world thanks to Wycliffe Gordon means that there are certainly people wanting to know more about it. I also think that valve trombone can be split into a new page with superbone merged into it; the latter was only used by bandleader Maynard Ferguson and his band, as far as I know. Tromboon, I also don't believe, is even deserving of a mention except on P.D.Q. Bach's page, as no sources independent from his work talk about it. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Interesting: Brass Herald article about Torbjörn Hultmark's so-called "Soprano Trombone project" - and interesting that he was inspired after playing it in a performance of Plötzlichkeit! — Jon (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I would look toward the clarinet article (a current GA) for ideas on how to approach this. Interestingly, there is both the Clarinet family article and an article on the Soprano clarinet seperate from the parent pages. Maybe even tenor trombone can be separated out its own article, although I'm personally not too thrilled about that idea. I honestly think some sort of standardization should be done between all the major orchestral instruments, as they are currently a mess. Whether that means having a large page dedicated to the general trombone, one about the family, and then the individual articles, is fine by me. I personally advocate for each range or type having its own page, even if it's a stub. I recently unmerged the flapamba article from the marimba page, for example. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I just couldn't help myself and went ahead and created Draft:Soprano trombone—Jon (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fairly bulky to me! And you wanted it to be merged with the larger trombone page... Why? I Ask (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha, how did that happen! You were right though, as you alluded to above; once you go looking there's tons of material for an article in its own right. Question is, should we edit it down to be commensurate with its relative scarcity in modern rep/usage? I'd be curious what the British Trombone Society "Soprano Trombone Project" pages contain (members only).—Jon (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could probably ask that at WP:RX. I'm sure someone would be able to get you what you need from that page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is weird. 

message: Hi all - the split has been going well so far, and I think we now have good-ish articles for alto, bass, contrabass, cimbasso, and to my surprise, even soprano. That was the low-hanging fruit, but now we come to some trickier items that require a bit more thought and consensus first. These items, and my thoughts for what they're worth, are:
* Tenor trombone. This could be its own article, or it could redirect to (a section in?) the main trombone article, which by-and-large is already dealing with the tenor trombone by default, since it is the most common type.
* F-attachment. I think this material should be merged into the trombone article, probably in the "Construction" section, with its own section heading which is useful for targeting redirections.
* Valve trombone. Depending on the amount of useful material we can dig up about it, this could either have its own article, or be integrated within the main trombone article. Update, 2 June 2022: there is now a separate valve trombone article.
* Superbone. Personally, although I love it, I don't think the superbone is common or notable enough to have a separate article, although it should certainly be included in the valve trombone material.
Once these items are decided and done, this article can then be reduced to a concise summary of the various types of trombone, with links to the separate articles using . This can then be nicely merged back into the existing § Types section in the main article.  Please add your thoughts below! Cheers — Jon (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I've moved material into the valve trombone article. I've since discovered there's a whole separate stub article for the valide trombone, which never survived its invention in the 1940s. It should probably be folded into an article section, along with the separate superbone article. Neither article is well-sourced. Opinions? — Jon (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

text: There is a discussion started on Talk:Superbone#Merge into valve trombone which is pertinent. Cheers—Jon (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Does anyone actually care all that much? If not, maybe I'll just merge this whole article into Trombone and be done with it, because I just seem to be talking to myself.—Jon (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do care and have been approvingly watching your changes. It's possible that others feel the same but have failed to say sosorry! I agree that the former structure was weird, and I like seeing it going into a more sensible setup. It is not my field but I am pleased to see it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Acutally... if someone knowledgeable about such things can help out with the proper procedure here, that would be most appreciated, I don't want to end up doing the wrong thing or getting banned! Does this constitute a Request for deletion, request for merge? I can't quite make head or tail of WP:MERGE just now. Perhaps I need more coffee. — Jon (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I've added some merge templates in relevant places to possibly stimulate discussion/last orders :-) — Jon (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I am assuming after 2 weeks that no news is good news! I will do this merge as proposed either later today or tomorrow, weather permitting.—Jon (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next up, tenor trombone, valve trombone, merge this back into trombone