Your Favorite BAT

[tubatom91]

I played a piston fafner at Midwest and loved it! It was a really sweet playing horn, if I didn't have a CC I would bite for a 195-5valve or the new 196 fasolt which I would love to try!
Fafner at midwest:

[bearphonium]

The only one I've had the opportunity to play was John Dalen's Holton 345. WOW.

[TUbajohn20J]

The True meaning of BAT:

[andrew the tuba player]

Nice pics TUbajohn20J. What is the horn in the third pic? it is a very nice looking horn and looks to be a beast.

[Bob Kolada]

What's the point of all that if you didn't identify them?

[bigbob]

beautiful horns all of them what was the 4th picture in saten silver a three banger and also the rain catcher??....................................................................bigbob

[mammoth2ba]

I didn't post the photos, but I recognized all the instruments. For those who didn't:
1-Conn 46K Jumbo Sousaphone Grand BBb;
2-Jumbo Raincatcher BBb, part of the Interlochen Fine Arts Camp collection;
3-larger horn is the Rudolph Meinl 6/4 BBb, smaller one is St. Pete BBb;
4-rear view of Conn 20J BBb;
5-Conn 20J BBb with upright bell made using the flare of a recording bell.

[Rick Denney]

There are lots of big tubas, and none of them are perfect. Some make a magic sound but have scale issues. Some require an external mechanical bellows to supply enough air, but for those gifted with efficient use of their vital capacity, they can produce magic. Some are dark to the point of being woofy, requiring considerable effort and skill to produce a colorful sound, and a few have that colorful sound built in.

For me, the magic BATS have the following characteristics:

1. They play like a smaller tuba.
2. They do not require special effort to create a colorful sound.
3. They are designed to magnify what the player provides, rather than demanding more from the player.
Corollary to 1-3: They provide good feedback so that devination isn't required to know what's happening out front.
4. They have manageable intonation.
5. They have a usable scale and response.
6. A normal humanoid can actually hold and play them.

I have played many BATs, but only a few that really have the magic. The problem is, of course, that the magic is different for each person. I would put my Holton in that category, but certainly not all Holtons. The ancient big rotary Kings were really special instruments--the one I played definitely earns a spot in the magic category. I've played many big Conns, and some do it but frankly most don't (just as with Holtons). I've played a couple of Rusk-converted Yorks that had the magic, but by and large the converted instruments I've played didn't have it for me. (I have really liked some smaller converted instruments, however.) I've never played a 2165 that had it--one person described it thusly: Instead of getting the most out of what I can provide, they are designed to get the most out of what Warren Deck can provide. The big Willson is beautifully made, but they have all felt dead in my hands. The Rudy 6/4 is really in a class by itself. Looking at it, most wouldn't think it possible even to make sounds on it. After five minutes with one, though, one starts to entertain extremely expensive desires.

Big tubas are so different from each other, even within the same make and model, that it's impossible to generalize about them.

But to answer the question: My favorite is the one I own. I've played very few that I thought were as good, and those include a 6450, an old big King, a couple of converted Yorks (maybe). Perhaps one of the early Yorkbrunners. I'm sure there are better ones, and several who have played mine seemed to think my own regard for it was a bit inflated.

Rick "happily biased" Denney

[Frank Ortega]

I like the way Rick articulated that last post.

The only BAT that I've played, that fulfills all of his requirements, is Paul Scott's 1940 Martin Mammoth.

A truly remarkable horn indeed.

My two cents.
Frank Ortega

[Wyvern]

I would agree with all Rick Denney's BAT criteria, but would add as the final ingredient that it have the broad, rich, almost wrap around sound so characteristic of a BAT - which makes them so special.

Of course, my Neptune fulfils all the criteria 'for me'

PS I was lucky enough to try a Nirschl 6/4 today and was very impressed with its gorgeous sound and great response across all registers - wonderful tuba! I would say it is my favorite piston CC BAT

[sloan]

One (small?) nit: Rick's criteria are heavily weighted towards the man behind the mouthpiece. Others may be more concerned with the man in the front row of the mezzanine.

Note that neither approach is necessarily better than the other. It's all a question of "who is writing the check".

[J.c. Sherman]

I'll add one thing to the amendment already made to Rick's amendments : )

The truly wonderful BAT is the one you feel in your chest, not just in your ear; it has presence. For me, in addition, it needs to blend, not stick to itself. One Rudy 5/4 CC I heard was "big"... and nothing else. There are other BATs like that.

J.c.S.

[Wyvern]

The truly wonderful BAT is the one you feel in your chest, not just in your ear; it has presence. For me, in addition, it needs to blend, not stick to itself. One Rudy 5/4 CC I heard was "big"... and nothing else. There are other BATs like that.

Do you think that is because the Rudy is really a German Kaiser tuba, rather than an American style BAT? Although both big tubas, two very different sound concepts. To my ears Kaiser tubas are more direct in their sound, while 'true' BATs have that 'presence'.

It is not a piston/rotor thing, because some 6/4 piston tubas sound Kaiser like, while some rotary tubas have that BAT 'presence'.

[Ken Herrick]

That said, I will probably move to the American sound as that is what Cleveland is moving towards, though I think mine will ultimately be of the King Monster style (please God). They are the finest of the fine, for me.

J.c.S.

I'm not familiar with the King Monster style. Could you expound on which models you're referring to and why you prefer them? Pictures would be great as well.

Thx!

The King Monsters have been loooonnnngg discontinued. String linkage rotary valve BBb.

tuba9%20045%20(Medium).jpg

Also came (I think more often) with a detachable bell, recording or stovepipe.

J.c.S.

I would have chimed in earlier but, i've been off to the workshop getting some suspensopn work done (replacement kneww)

This is the King "monster" of which I've made mention at different times, and is the model which I used as my main instrument for years, including with the Chicago Brass Quintet (Chuck Geir et al), in trad bands, uni, recording and so on. I originally had a 3 valve version, one of the last made in 46. My 4 valve was supposedly from 1929 (accoding to a former HN White foreman who worked for Schilke) though the serial no supposedly puts it a bit later.
In any case it was one of a set of 6 made for Ohio State University prior to their band tour through Europe.

When I got the 4V Jake wnated it so I got another from OSU for him. AS he put it, if he had had one when he went to Curtis he never would have bothered with the Yorks.

These were available as 3 or 4 valve in this style only - though a mirror image left hand model was available on special order.

They cost $200 new for 3v and $220 for 4v in the early thirties. They were all hand built and I believe only about 100 were made in total.

Connie Weldon, Charlie Guze (Chicago Lyric Opera), I believe a tubist with Detroit, and a few others used these. Dan Heeren (Denver) was desperate for a good axe and talked jake out of the one i had obtained for him and used it in Denver and with Chicago when he Played Ravinia, etc.

The only real tuning "issue" was that it liked to play the 4th line F quite sharp - easily overcome with 4. However this was not a real problem as it simply resonated the F easily at two different pitches. IF you "buzzed" the F at correct pitch the horn would respond.

Over the years I did some minor mods and eventually just never noticed the "problem".

When Jake played it he sounded like "Jake" - you would not have asked what horn he was playing. I always got comments about the sound it made. It very well matched the criteria Rick brought up in his comments above for describing a great BAT.

I never thought of it as a BAT. At .750 it was not a BIG bore. The main thing was that it was almost all tapered except through the valve block and was a very efficient amplifier.
When I once used it to cover the contra bassoon part on Brahms "Haydn" variations at short notice - the conductor commentted that brahms should have written "Tuba" at the top of the part.

Bill Bell's 4V CC was an entirely different model - much more like the older 2341 - another "magic" horn of which only a few were made. The other recording, detachable bell, etc Kings were not the same as the BBb Monster.

[J.c. Sherman]

The truly wonderful BAT is the one you feel in your chest, not just in your ear; it has presence. For me, in addition, it needs to blend, not stick to itself. One Rudy 5/4 CC I heard was "big"... and nothing else. There are other BATs like that.

Do you think that is because the Rudy is really a German Kaiser tuba, rather than an American style BAT? Although both big tubas, two very different sound concepts. To my ears Kaiser tubas are more direct in their sound, while 'true' BATs have that 'presence'.

It is not a piston/rotor thing, because some 6/4 piston tubas sound Kaiser like, while some rotary tubas have that BAT 'presence'.

No, I think it was just a Rudy 5/4 CC thing. Most Rudy's sound god-like. My own BAT is as german as it gets, and it has the presence in spades and blend to boot. And violists can charge me with assault if I want to blow.

But the Kings... the kings...

J.c.S. (who thought the only issue with his old King rotary was the F# at the bottom of the staff... a tad flat).

[Wyvern]

When I got the 4V Jake wnated it so I got another from OSU for him. AS he put it, if he had had one when he went to Curtis he never would have bothered with the Yorks.

An interesting - What if?

If Jacobs had played a King "monster", would the York 6/4 CC ever have become the legend they have

Would there now be various rotary King copies, rather than piston York copies

[Ken Herrick]

Re the lst couple posts;

Yes, the low F# was a bit flat - easily fixed -took a bit off 3.
For some this would have been exaggerated byfact that 12 were a bit sharp BUT slide 1 was very accessible for a pull - as was slide for 4. fifth partial D is a rare find - it was right in tune - open.

Compared to the CSO York 1 The York was a bit sweeter on the top end, but the King absolutely thrashed it at the bottom end. In between you could not pick them. The Holton copy (Jake's personal one) was not in the same league. overall ease of tuning went to the king

Jake was not 100% comfortable on BBb and Carl Geyer had advised against cutting it to CC - tempting - I think Sam Gnagey might have done this by installing a piston valve block and a shorter, straighter lead pipe - but it possibly just would not be the same. Had Dan not needed an instrument Jake likely would have used it for some of the Wagner and such which were coming up on the schedule.

Yep - we will never know what would have happened to the Yorks and all their imitations.
Consider though, that #2 had been stripped of it's 5th valve at one point and Jake didn't want it any more at the time. ( I KNOW WHO PINCHED IT). Donatelli got rid of the big fat things because they were so hard to hold. Had not Jake - or at least one of the other top five been playing #1, it probably would have vanished from notice.

At least Bill's CC version was copied - the Mienl Weston Bell model - but it just was not the same. I think the metal used might have been part of the difference. If Kanstul used the "York" brass to make a bell for a MW bell model things could get interesting. Of course - to me at least - it has always seemed a shame that King never made a CC version (not a cut job) of the BBb Monster. Problem - it would have required all new mandrels.Not an viable economic proposition. As it was, the BBb was being built on a one at a time basis as it made a way to keep the best craftsmen gainfully employed during the depression.

I have often wondered if any of the OSU instruments are still there. They had six made; I believe I got the second and third ones to have been traded in on new instruments, and when I tried to buy a third so Jake wouldn't be without by selling I went as far as the university to find that they were not going to sell trade any more as they had heard a rumour that they were really good instruments and that "one of the top tubists, whom they refused to name, (he he he), now had one so they were going to keep theirs and have them overhauled as they "must be really good".


Sorry about typos gang - My leg is giving me hell so I'm not spending any extra time at keyboard.

[ZachDomrese]

I was wonderin if you guys would consider this (a PT-606p) a BAT. its deffinently alot bigger than the tubas my school has

[tclements]

I've played Yorkbrunners, Gronitz, MW2165, OLD Nirschl. My favorite (right now) is the Willson 3050 Rotary. My trombone section loves it, and even one of our horn players (who doesn't pass out compliments) really likes it. The horn had a nice core to it, the low notes focus better than any piston BAT I've played and there is PLENTY of projection. Recently, (like yesterday) I played a PT-6 rotary that I really like and will probably get one of those, too. I Played a PT-6, silver that I like, but I guess right now, I'm in a rotary kind of space.

[TubaTodd]

back on topic: my favorite BAT...?? I suppose a carefully selected 2165.

It's still not for sale Joe.

I got a chance to play it today in a rehearsal. (I don't rehearse anywhere near as much as I used to) I'm really loving this horn. I decided to go with my Sidey SSH today instead of my MF3H. The MF3H sounds much better in the confined space of my home office. In a rather large rehearsal room, stage or cathedral, the SSH sounds quite lovely.