What are the differences between (kinds of) tubas?

[Donn]

I could sure complain about the low Bb on my old Eb giant bass, but wouldn't do much good. It has been cause for embarrassment.

[Trumgottist]

Bassoons prefer a couple of flats...

Having spent most of the last four years playing Bassoon, I have to disagree with this. Personally I found a preference for sharp keys in my playing. Though flat keys are very simple on the instrument, sharp keys are much more fun and are just as easy. (Again, IMHO) It really depends on who you're asking and what music they play most often.

Interesting to hear. (I'm a bassoon teacher by training and profession.) I based my assertion on the fact that most (all?) bassoons have problems with f# being the worst note on the instrument (getting too high and being a bit unstable), and that the c# is placed slightly awkwardly with the thumb going all across the instrument. But as you point out, that's something you can get used to with a bit of practice, and it'll feel natural if you've played in those keys enough.

My main point was that woodwinds don't have the same connection to keys that brass and strings do. It's mostly a matter of fingerings. (And a few bad tones - on a bassoon it's the f# and to some extent the eb, on a clarinet it's the g', g#', a' and bb' that are a bit unstable unless you add extra fingers…) That's pretty true about brass too. Strings have that extra resonance thing with the open strings, but I don't know anything inherent in any wind instrument (bagpipes and non-chromatic instruments excluded of course) that make the instrument respond differently (to the listener) in different keys in the hands of a good player. Please do enlighten me if you know different.

[Rick Denney]

Many of the posts have acknowledged the preferences of their authors, but some have also presented those preferences disguised as fact. Anybody generalizing an Eb tuba as being clear and balanced, while a Bb tends to be woofy, has never compared a Conn/York/Holton Monster Eb Bass to a Yamaha YBB 621, where anybody listening would come to the opposite conclusion.

Here's my taxonomy, since any discussion of the differences has to start with a common set of definitions:

Bass Tuba: Pitched in Eb or F.

Contrabass Tuba: Pitched in Bb or C, below the bass tuba.

Tenor Tuba: Pitched in Bb or C, an octave above the Contrabass Tuba.

Those definitions are orthogonal (literally) to the fatness of the tuba. And the fatness of the tuba accounts for most of the differences people note between categories.

So, F tubas are not that different from Eb tubas because they are a foot-and-a-half shorter, but rather because most F tubas tend to be tell-bell designs in the German tradition while most Eb tubas bring visions of either the Besson Sovereign (and its clones) or the Monster Eb Bass (in its various forms). And a small Bb contrabass tuba like the Yamaha 621 is going to be a lot closer in sound and response to any moderate or large F than it will be to any 6/4 contrabass tuba.

The typical F is different than the typical Eb more for historical reasons than for functional reasons. The F's roots are in the Wieprecht design tradition, which took root in countries under German influence. That has evolved into tall, relatively narrow rotary F tubas that are the primary instrument in current Germany, for example. (The Berlinerpumpen valves on the original Wieprecht tuba are the precursor to the rotary, despite their external appearance. Cerveny made that transition probably in the 1840's.) That evolution has led to wider and wider intstruments with increasingly pronounced bell flares.

The Eb evolved from the Adolphe Sax design that used top-action Perinet valves instead of the rotary valves. (Sax and Wieprecht were competitors.) That design approach took root in France, Belgium, Italy, and the British Empire. One major milestone in that tradition was the introduction of the Blaikley automatic compensation approach, which is now standard in instruments used in the UK and (much of) its commonwealth. But those instruments have also grown in width, particularly under the influence of John Fletcher, who was seeking a sound more like he got with his American instrument.

I'm not sure there is any real evidence as to whether Bb or C contrabass tubas came first. There is evidence of a C contrabass going back at least to the 1850s (Cerveny), and Bb instruments also from that time. C is closer to the Wieprecht tradition, though I don't think Wieprecht included a contrabass in is system (just as Adolphe Sax did not include one in his). Wieprecht's other instruments were pitched in C and F. Here, though, the historical connection fails, because C tubas are not in common use in German-influenced areas. In those areas, the Bb contrabass is the standard instrument, though it's a secondary instrument in many applications (just as the F tuba is usually a secondary instrument in the USA). Because that historical thread was lost, however, the real differences have been in the width and basic configuration of the contrabass tubas, and the pitch preferences have evolved since then.

The fat contrabass, particularly with front-action pistons, is a particularly American approach. In the late 19th Century, American orchestras used small Eb tubas, ophicleides, or even euphoniums. Right at the end of that century, contrabass tubas started to emerge as a primary instrument, and C was the dominant choice in orchestras as much as anything because of the influence of August Helleberg, one of its primary proponents. In bands, Bb was more popular simply because that's what they used, with perhaps a nod to the reasoning that all the other band instruments were pitched in flat keys, as was (frequently) the music. The tendency to wider instruments was rooted in the band tradition.

But that band tradition leaked over to the orchestral tradition when Stokowski asked Philip Donatelli to acquire a large, band-style instrument to emulate an organ-pipe sound. That instrument ended up in Arnold Jacobs's hands, and when he became famous (after WWII), so did that instrument style. His influence as a teacher has led to a wide contingent of his students using that type of instrument, and it has become dominant.

The York tuba that Donatelli ordered was likely made from Bb-tuba parts, and it was pitched in C (like the rotary tubas first promulgated by Helleberg) though it was provided with a Bb switch valve (the flat-whole-step 5th now common). The pitch wasn't the issue. That instrument is what it is because of its fatness, and instruments of that type have been made in both Bb and C (and in Eb, if you count the Monster Eb Bass).

In musical terms, the history isn't particularly important. The notion that Bb instruments work better in bands and C instruments work better in orchestras is just no longer true, even if it was ever a primary consideration rather than an ex post facto rationalization.

I doubt anyone in the audience, even a tuba player, could tell the difference between my Holton BB-345 and a Holton CC-345 played by the same person, if played from behind a screen so that the visual clues were hidden. They feel a bit different--it makes sense that if an F tuba seems more responsive than a Bb tuba, a C tuba ought to cover at least some of that ground. But I doubt they sound different. That does not mean that the sound concept of a typical band player isn't different than that of a typical orchestral player.

Orchestra players have gravitated more and more to C tubas, so that they are not overwhelmingly dominant. I think that's because of the slightly better response. Non-professional tuba players in the US have stayed with Bb because that's what they know and for most there is no compelling reason to change. This has led to the current market reality that good Bb tubas are much cheaper than C tubas of similar design and quality, at least on the used market. And to the reality that C tubas tend to be made to higher construction standards given that their owners expect to maintain a higher duty cycle. That is used to justify the higher prices, but the real reason for the higher prices is that C tuba players are willing to pay more.

So, in general:

The differences in shape and configuration vastly outweigh the differences in pitch within the bass tuba and contrabass tuba categories. 6/4 contrabass tubas of different pitch are much more similar to each other than to tall-bell 4/4 rotary contrabass tubas. And tall rotary bass tubas are much more like each other than either are to British-style compensating bass tubas, no matter whether in Eb or F. With bass tubas, the comparison is more difficult, though--there are very few British-style compensating F's, and until recently there were very few rotary Eb's of the same dimensions and quality of the best rotary F tubas.

In the USA, a community band player can bring anything, and will be judged on sound and facility. I have played in good sections that mixed C and Bb contrabass tubas, and many bands still exercise the tradition of some bass and contrabass tubas. The German and American traditions are stronger in US community bands than the British/French tradition, despite frequent exceptions. Bring what you can play well and that pleases you. In US orchestras, the contrabass tuba is the primary instrument and the bass tuba the secondary instrument, and the convention is to use C and F tubas. That's been driven by tradition and by the quality of available instruments as much as anything--one can certainly deliver a quality product playing Bb and Eb tubas.

In much of the British Commonwealth, the Eb compensating tuba is the primary instrument for everything, though this is relatively recent. Before the 1960's, the F non-compensating Barlow F (of older Saxhorn design) was more dominant in British orchestras. Since brass bands have their roots in the British tradition, those are the preferred instruments types for brass bands everywhere, whether bass or contrabass. That's as much a matter of looks as sound, but the fat versions of these instrument have a roundness of tone that is characteristic.

In Germany and places following that influence, the tall rotary F tuba is the primary orchestral instrument and the Bb rotary contrabass is the secondary instrument for use when called for. In bands, bass or contrabass could go either way, but rotary designs will still be dominant, as will pitches of Bb or F.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Rick "play what you can commit to playing well" Denney

[PMeuph]

Piccolo in C, Flute in C, Oboe in C, Clarinet in C (because of some classical works) and in A (though Bb is often used), Bassoon in C.
As we know the string family: Violin GDAE, Viola CGDA, Cello CGDA, Double Bass EBDG.

Clarinet in C is really more of a specialty for those who really feel they have to. (Possibly like Cimbasso?) Using a Bb and an A for all the rep remains quite constant.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that most modern Double basses used for orchestral playing usually use an extension down to low B. In fact, before the double bass became the standard, the violone was often tuned so that the lowest string would be a C.

Also, maybe keyboard instruments have C as the lowest pitch.* I don't know if that is solely a practical reason or partially a psychological reason, but it remains true. I would imagine that the though process of those writing music is very highly influenced by their musical development, and if that contained some piano lessons (or Organ) one might be accustomed to using low C on its own.

*This is true on Harpsichords, organs, some pianos and many pianofortes.

[GC]

Rick's essay should become a standard reference on the subject.

And regarding the C scale/C tuning issue, any really good musician with any horn in any key should be able to play any note in tune relative to the scale used, key, and underlying harmony. However, playing a contrabass on a part that runs high or bass on a part that's consistently low can make the job much more difficult (and compromise your tone quality if you don't have a really wide range).

Much of the instrument size/pitch issue comes down to fingering comfort, desired timbre, ease of playing in the given tessitura, and (let's face it) what you have available. There are times playing Eb in brass band where I'd rather play a part on F tuba, and there have been plenty of times in concert band where Eb presented a ton of low range problems.

[Trumgottist]

An essay that should become a standard reference on the subject.

Thanks!

[Rick Denney]

However, playing a contrabass on a part that runs high or bass on a part that's consistently low can make the job much more difficult (and compromise your tone quality if you don't have a really wide range).

Indeed. And this drives most people's decision to add a secondary instrument to their skill set. There are brass quintet parts I've played on my Bb just because my hands got tangled up managing six valves on technical material (for me) using my usual F. More practice and skill would solve that problem, but that ain't the hand I've been dealt. Having both a bass and a contrabass tuba is a problem solver in addition to questions of providing the correct timbre for a given piece of music.

Rick "much more accurate in the upper register using an F, and much happier in the lower register using a Bb" Denney