Talk:Trombone

Flugabone

Why does Flugabone redirect to this article, but the flugabone isn't mentioned in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to Types of trombone and amended the redirect to point there instead, until we merge it into this page (see below).—Jon (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Posaune

I got an idea that the etymology is off track. I think that "posaune" derives from the concatenation of " poss" the action of pushing up and down as in "possing" and "posing stick" and "horn". Coincidence? - I think not. Professionals, please dive in. 2bahU4 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 2bahU4, for the suggestion. The etymology of "posaune" is not mentioned in this article. How can it be off track? This article only mentions the etymology of "trombone" itself. Your theory is contradicted here at the German Wikipedia article, which proposes that it is derived from the Latin Buccina, an earlier brass instrument. So to make room for your idea you would need (1) the article to discuss the etymology of Posaune specifically, and (2) a reliable source supporting your idea. I hate to pour cold water but I don't think this will fly. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for reorganisation

Please note, a discussion has started on the Types of trombone talk page about splitting this and Types of trombone into their composite articles for consistency with the other orchestral instruments. I've put a banner on both articles alerting editors to this discussion; I'm not sure how to kick off the "proposal to merge" process as it involves several articles at once. If anyone knows or can help, your input would also be appreciated :-) Jon (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This has now largely happened; now there is a proposal to merge the reduced and summarised Types of trombone back into the "Types" section of this article.—Jon (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Range

I searched on Google and it shows the lowest note of a trombone without additional material is a E2, but this article says it's a C2. I am kind of confused because the third trombone score for the Yellow River Piano Concerto also contains notes Eb2 and D2, so I doubt if the third trombone is a bass trombone in it's instrumentation. QiuLiming1 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@QiuLiming1: tenor trombones without F attachments go down to E₂ in 7th position (second partial), and then the pedal/fundamental (first partial) notes start at B♭₁ in 1st position and go down to E₁ in 7th, thus leaving a gap of E♭₂ to B₁ unobtainable without a valve; this gap is often called the "valve register". Modern symphonic tenor trombones usually have an F attachment, which lowers the instrument a fourth into F, but then it only has six positions (since the semitones are longer), which means the B₁ is still unobtainable. Tenor trombone F attachments are usually built with a long tuning slide, so that if necessary a B₁ can be obtained in long 7th by pulling the tuning slide of the F valve out about 15 cm, to E. Bass trombones have two valves usually in F and D to solve this problem, and provide greater facility in this valve register. Without looking at the score, I'd say the third part is probably a bass trombone part, since that is usual, and since it has E♭₂ and D₂ written which are in the valve register. Looks like I should take a look at the ranges given in this article too :-) — Jon (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed work

I think this article could easily be a Good article candidate, so to get there I propose we work on the following things:

1. References.
   1. What few inline citations exist, are pretty uneven.
   2. There are big chunks of the article with no citations at all.
   3. The principal reference works are under-utilised: Herbert The Trombone (2006); Guion History of the Trombone, 2010; Yeo Illustrated Dictionary, 2021; Cambridge Companion to Brass Instruments; even Bevan Tuba Family (2000). I think we ought to make more use of them, using the {{sfn}} template which can link to the existing references in the § Further reading section, which we could also consider renaming to "Bibliography".
2. Reduce repetition. There is a lot of it, some left over from merging back the content from Types of trombone.
   1. In particular, I think the § Construction and § Variations in construction sections should be merged/rationalised.
   2. Similarly, the § F attachment and § Valve attachments sections have a lot of overlap; There is also pertinent material in other articles (some of which also need work!) which could be summarised here: Axial flow valve, Hagmann valve, Brass instrument valve, piston valve, rotary valve.
3. Improve coverage.
   1. The § Didactics section could be considerably expanded. Currently it only mentions short-slide models for children; there is a vast amount of pedagogical material out there. Secondly, I had to look up what "didactics" meant, and I've taught in secondary schools :-) Maybe it's a common term in North America? Perhaps we could consider renaming it to "Pedagogy" or perhaps even "Didactics and pedagogy". Just a thought.
   2. Jazz: history, music, musicians, images, groups, instrument adaptations - more please!
4. Order of sections. Should we have the Construction section before or after the History section? How do other reference works arrange their articles (e.g. Grove)? I haven't checked yet, but perhaps we can look at other B, A and GA rated articles in Category:Musical instruments and arrive at a consensus.
5. Length. This article is long. It's current length is mainly because it needs a good copy edit.
   1. There's too much unnecessary detail in some places (e.g. valve attachments(!), techniques) and not enough in others (use in jazz and popular music), notwithstanding eliminating repetition (see above). I actually think it could and should be longer, because there's quite a few interesting things not being covered!
   2. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure. External links to manufacturers, promotional sites, blogs, etc. with no reference citation value. There has been a good deal of tidy up recently which is good, but we could probably do a bit more.
   3. Wikipedia is not a text book. Some bits of the article read a bit like a method book detailing how to actually play the trombone, rather than keeping to an encyclopædic explanatory overview of the same concepts. This is also not as bad as it was 2-3 years ago when I first dug in here :)
6. Nice extras.
   1. We could make more use of the Score extension for music snippets.
   2. Photos. More photos! I have tried to track down and categorise more images on Commons for the other trombone articles (bass trombone, contrabass trombone, soprano trombone, etc.) and upload some nice new ones (many thanks to Daniel from swisstbone.com and the various museums who are CC-licensing their online images, for instance!) but I think this article needs more.
   3. Sound samples. I need to get behind some of my horns and record some excerpts. This takes time to brush up and practice, which I'm a bit slammed for at the moment, but if someone else wants to have a go, awesome :-) (personally, I'd really like to dust the contra off and record the Spear for the Lilypond snippet on the contrabass trombone article.)

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Over the next month or two I'm going to be slowly picking away at these. Please absolutely wade in below with your thoughts, objections, withering criticism, amazing resources you've found, etc. or feel free to ping me on Trombone Chat if you're on there (which is another absolute goldmine of information). Cheers, and may Die Posaunengötter be with you! — Jon (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)