(07-28-2019, 08:58 PM)Nayrb Wrote: I have another question for our resident brass expert. What's a cimbasso for? I've found it has the range of a tuba but is a bit closer in timbre to a trombone, with a meatier low end. I used it rather often in the past as a sort of bridge between the tuba and the bones, but began to phase it out as my stuff became more "proper." I'd like to bring it back, though. I'm guessing it plays a large role in the "BWAAAAAM" ensemble.

(07-29-2019, 01:07 AM)Samulis Wrote: Cimbassos are more or less bass valve trombones, in F I believe.

Back in the 19th century, there was a short 'war' between proponents of (traditional) slide and (newfangled) valve trombones. As valved instruments tend to be more flexible, they were popular in military bands, folk, and opera uses where fast melodic lines were common. However, lacking the portamento/legato nature of the slide trombone, they were found by many to be the inferior choice and are generally forgotten/ignored today.

Musicians throughout Italy, Germany, Austria, and the Balkans had a rather strong interest in valve trombones, which work well in the context of their traditional music, and are relatively easy to learn to play. As such, the Cimbasso, originally as just a bass valve trombone, likely found its way into Italian opera, and from there managed to solidify a small but interesting part in the modern musical landscape. While its role today is more as a 'color' (or a hackish gag in the case of 'bwams'), its true nature was as a bass instrument replacing or reinforcing tubas.

While the bass slide trombone in F died out by the middle of the 20th century, replaced by modern "bass" trombones, the bass valve trombone in F, in the form of the cimbasso, exists today.

Functionally, a Cimbasso plays a fourth below the range of a (Bb) tenor trombone, in the same fundamental pitch as the F of a horn or the F trigger on a modern orchestral tenor or bass trombone. Valves tend to add a bit of impedance to the air flow, giving the instrument a bit rounder of a tone than a 'true' F bass slide trombone as would have been used in most orchestras of the 19th century. If my memory serves me correct, most cimbassos feature a fourth valve which drops their pitch by a fourth (in the same way an orchestral tenor trombone has an F trigger to drop their pitch down a fourth). This is typically used to allow the instrumentalist access between the pedal tones and the lowest tones of the 2nd partial.

Compared to a tuba, cimbassos are pitched a fourth above the C orchestral tuba, or a fifth above the concert band Bb tuba. There are tubas in F and Eb, as there are contrabass trombones in Bb (same fundamental pitch as the Bb tuba), so there's some variable mix to the potential blend.

(note that tubas and trombones are almost always non-transposing instruments, due to their origins as accompanists for choirs)

(07-29-2019, 01:45 AM)Nayrb Wrote: Good to know I was on to something, at least, with cimbasso as a supplement to the tuba. Interesting, too, to know that it is limited in terms of legato / portamento capabilities.

(07-29-2019, 01:45 AM)Nayrb Wrote: The "arms race" of instruments is fascinating. I suppose to an extent a lot of older music as it is performed and interpreted today isn't exactly what it was back when it was written, even stuff from the last 150 years or so, given the evolutionary aspect of the very instruments used to perform said music. I recall in a music appreciation class (a class in which I received one of my only Bs in college because I slept through a test on accident) we were shown a video of a Monteverdi opera in which only reconstructions of period instruments were used. That was pretty cool.

(07-29-2019, 03:59 AM)Samulis Wrote: I've even heard of some guys playing 1st and 2nd trombone parts on bass trombones.  

(08-02-2019, 11:33 PM)Nayrb Wrote: The infallible Internet has led me to believe that the bass trombone often comprises one part of the three trombone section. As such, I've begun to try to build any divisi parts around this idea.

(08-03-2019, 12:29 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-02-2019, 11:33 PM)Nayrb Wrote: The infallible Internet has led me to believe that the bass trombone often comprises one part of the three trombone section. As such, I've begun to try to build any divisi parts around this idea.

A number of years ago I tried setting up a template that had only multiples of solo brass and winds samples, to facilitate arranging properly for the sections instead of having them play in unison all the time. From what I can recall it sounded very impressive, but added a layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time. And I also recall I didn't have enough solo instruments of high enough quality to make this work as well as I wanted. I think I should try this again, since I feel I'm becoming kind of lazy and complacent.

Still, there's the matter of combining solo brass into ensembles where you'll run into a lot of phase issues. Add enough of them together and you'll have a sound more reminiscent of Van Halen's Jump than an actual real life brass section.

(08-03-2019, 01:20 AM)Nayrb Wrote: For my part, I'm only using this approach when I'm working with intervals within a section. I'm not trying to build sections out of solo patches to play unisons. Maybe for a part where three bones could be playing only a two note part; but in those cases I've had just as much luck "cheating" and playing it with the section patch, with care. Sections made of solo patches might be a cool frontier for samples in the future, but like you, I just can't get anything with the samples I have that sounds as impressive as the basic section patches.

(08-03-2019, 01:41 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 01:20 AM)Nayrb Wrote: For my part, I'm only using this approach when I'm working with intervals within a section. I'm not trying to build sections out of solo patches to play unisons. Maybe for a part where three bones could be playing only a two note part; but in those cases I've had just as much luck "cheating" and playing it with the section patch, with care. Sections made of solo patches might be a cool frontier for samples in the future, but like you, I just can't get anything with the samples I have that sounds as impressive as the basic section patches.

That's kind of what I meant: solo instruments can't easily be combined into unison sections, at least not with brass. If you play the same note with e.g. three sampled solo trumpets it's going to sound all phasey and weird. So if you want to use actual recorded section samples along with solo samples for in-section chords and harmonies, you better make sure those solo samples go well with the ensemble sound or you'll have some frustrating times ahead of you. That was the "layer of complexity and extra work that I wasn't prepared for at the time" I was referring to, and not the actual arraging of the different solo instrument voices (though that played a part as well, of course).

(08-03-2019, 02:57 AM)Nayrb Wrote: There's anther question relevant to the thread: What's the primary purpose of a section of, say, two of every wind instrument in an orchestra? Is it for harmonies or for volume, or both?

(08-03-2019, 05:16 AM)Samulis Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 02:57 AM)Nayrb Wrote: There's anther question relevant to the thread: What's the primary purpose of a section of, say, two of every wind instrument in an orchestra? Is it for harmonies or for volume, or both?

That is the entire subject of orchestration pretty well summed up. 

By the dawn of the 19th century, composers began seeking new textures and a period of orchestral non-conformity began as new woodwind and brass instruments were tried, tested, and eventually either kept or abandoned. As the 19th century progressed, orchestras continued to grow larger. Composers such as Wagner and Berlioz (among many others) were proponents of large, complex orchestras with a wide range of timbres to draw from, not to mention larger concert halls with more seats, and so the orchestra as a whole grew louder... a process which continues uninterrupted to the present day.

For the most part, the number of woodwinds (single, double, triple, or quadruple) is generally tied to two things- skill and finances. Only the most experienced (or ambitious) composers tended to work with quadruple winds, with triple being a generally agreed value required to play many late-Romantic works, which tend to require a large orchestra. Double winds is perhaps on the small side, getting closer to the realm of a chamber or classical orchestra in scope, but much more manageable for the composer.

You will find all orchestration texts discuss using woodwind families in tutti or divisi as both valid. Historically, I would suggest the majority of cases call for 'divisi' writing, one line per part, allowing families to play harmony. Doubling parts across families (e.g. unison bass clarinet and bassoon) is widely used too. In general, the perceived increase in loudness from the addition of additional instruments is a diminishing scale, so doubling parts is almost more useful as its own color than it is as a method to compete with louder instruments. An entire section playing a line in unison is a powerful, evocative sound, almost no matter what section it is.

Ultimately, it is up to you as the composer/orchestrator to determine how many woodwinds to use and how to use them.