"downsizing" contrabass tubas...

[Donn]

That makes sense, or am I making it too simple - "light" here more or less comes out "bright", and puts you more in front of the choir? I've never particularly liked the term "background brass", but we are what we are.

[Uncle Buck]

I think Rick has it exactly right, ...

Hey, here's a "thread-jacking" piece of free advice to all those 20-ish or younger board members who are looking to make a good impression on others: The easiest way to look and sound smart on TubeNet is to say something along the lines of "I agree with Rick."

[pjv]

I've always wondered why ophicleide parts are so often played on F tuba's when the ophicleide itself is a Bb tenor instrument. Right? Every time I hear this instrument my ears say "euphonium" and definitely not "f-tuba".

[LCTuba89]

I've played tuba in band for many years, but never in a orchestra as I was on string bass. I had played a 5/4 CC Melton for many years in the community band. The presence of the horn was great, but the intonation was horrid. I took the plunge and purchased a BMB 6/4 BBb tuba because I wanted a big horn that had similar intonation tendencies to the other BBb tubas in the group. The first rehearsal I used it was included in a section that consisted of a 3/4 Tempest BBb, a 4/4 Miraphone 186 - 5U BBb, and my 6/4 BMB BBb. Within 30 seconds of playing during rehearsal, the section got "the hand". The presence was overwhelming to rest of the ensemble, so I've made it a habit to not play at non divisi parts below mf. Not saying the BMB can't play softly but the 186 player and myself tend to play pretty strong so in this 50 piece group. I've always rested on softer dynamics even before the BMB came along to make it easier for the section to play soft. Nothing quite sounds like a 6/4 tuba and the presence is almost like a Gibson EB-0 versus the Fender Jazz bass sound of a 4/4 tuba. I think if one wanted the best of both worlds, a 5/4 would be the best compromise, just make sure you can play it with a manageable scale.

PS: It's worlds easier to get an edge on a 5/4 in the lower register while still retaining a great deal of fundamental pitch. The 6/4 can do it, but you won't have any lungs left by the time you're done.

[bort]

I recently had to rent a car for a work trip. I wanted a normal 4/4 size car, but all they had was a 6/4 sized GMC Yukon, so that's what I had to use.

I have to say, it was a lot of fun... for the first 2 hours or so. And when I got tired of this enormous lumbering truck, and realized I was still in the middle of Iowa... well, it wasn't so much fun to drive anymore. Nor was parallel parking, or awkwardly hoping that it would fit in a parking garage (it did, but barely).

Now, if I had a ton of shitt to haul around, it wold have been great. But for one person and a small suitcase, it was excessive.

[PaulMaybery]

I love the sound of the BAT - and not just that the sound is broad and diffused. There seems to be a certain quality to it, akin to turning up the EQ, that is hard to achieve on smaller horns. That sound is a rather developed concept that takes a little work and a lot of careful listening to pull off. In that regard I believe it will be around for sometime, though I imagine there will be those for whom that "lust" experience may dwindle.

On the other hand, there are horns that can achieve that same ambience (EQ effect). Just a few days back, the Wessex 5/4 CC "Wyvern" arrived after a long wait. To my delight there were certain advantages to it over the 6/4. Most of all it is in no way an "air hog." Those quirky intonation issues are either not there or so easily to deal with that they are not a problem at all. Lastly, the ambience of the sound is huge. Filling a large hall is no problem and the blend with the other brass is very easy to pull off. Some of my experience may be a result of having played on my current 6/4 now for over 3 years, and so the 5/4 is like taking off lead weights from your running shoes. I'm approaching 70 and lugging the BAT around is becoming a problem, though I try to never admit it to colleagues. So for me, it boils down to "bang for your buck" and in this case, at least the Wessex "Wyvern" delivers. There is only so much tuba sound that is necessary in an orchestra, and I understand in some situations that can be enormous. But, I'm not sensing that anything is really lost with such a 5/4.

After I get a chance to use it some more, particularly in a large 80 piece orchestra, I will offer a more detailed review. Suffice it to say, at this time, I am extremely pleased to have such an instrument.

[Alex C]

I really believe (regardless of whether 16" or 18" taper) they are more suitable for wind-band use, where the goal, often, is to imitate the sound of a string bass (albeit louder). Blowing the crap out of them (in order to achieve more clarity/definition and "burn" in the sound) defeats their purpose (and makes them sound ugly), imo.

Again, they tend to offer that "Harley Davidson" appeal... Tuba player's love lookin' at 'em and braggin' that they own 'em, but must - in exchange - put up with their quirks.

I may be dead by then, but I predict that - within a decade (after an impressive several-decades run) - the 6/4 York copy fad/craze (at least, where professional symphony orchestra use is concerned) will have seriously ebbed.

Assuming Arnold Jacobs is the model and the reason for the popularity of the 6/4 orchestral tuba, the sound-goal would never be a string bass sound. The York was lively and rich in upper overtones. Mr. Jacobs rarely played to his maximum volume, he depended on the color of his sound to stand out in the orchestra. The Holton was a copy of the York but never sounded as refined and was as different from a string bass as it could be. Overblow and you sound like ripping sheet metal.

Assuming the popularity of the 6/4 tuba is a holdover from the 1930's great American tubas seems more likely to me. Almost all modern BAT players get a very dark sound and play very loud to be heard. The direct ancestors would be the big Martin tubas, the Conn 2_-J's and 3_-J's. Put six BATs in a band and there is an immediate balance issue.

You may be right about the popularity of the BAT waning. For now, the market is hot and heavy.

[Wyvern]

I equate playing a 6/4 tuba like driving high performance car. Not many people actually need that high power, but it is very nice to have when more power is required.

Tuba wise, the weight of carrying around a 6/4 is a major consideration and if you don't need then you will make life easier with something smaller. However the fact that this thread runs and runs means just like high performance cars, 6/4 tubas generate a lot of interest and admiration amongst tubists regardless of if they actually need them or not.

You need to consider the group/s you play in and what will work and decide what size and tone of tuba works best in the overall ensemble sound. But remember that tuba that seems to project like hell to you behind the mouthpiece, may not actually sound out well to the audience - so qualified ears (or least a recording device) out front are vital in making an informed decision.

[Wyvern]

Who still manufactures "jumbo" sousaphones? Why not?)

Obviously no-one now makes (probably always a small market), but the reason people do not play is largely the huge weight. Not many people are prepared to have over 40 lb on their shoulder, but having played Jumbo sousaphones a couple times myself, the sound and projection is great. It is just that weight makes prolonged playing a test of the player's pain threashhold. I think if they were made lighter, such as in carbon fibre they would sell and maybe even become popular again. The bass foundation they put under a band is fantastic.

I equate playing a 6/4 tuba like driving high performance car.

Having owned five or six different German-made ones (pitched in C) and one US-made one (pitched in Bb), I would sorta describe it as the opposite.

maneuverability/response - sluggish
steering - off
flashiness factor - more so: when standing still

I was only really using the comparison regarding the 'power' and 'glamor' - not equating with manoeuvrability/response - although that a lot depends on the actual model of tuba concerned, rather than just size.

Personally I am not advocating 6/4, or downsizing. Rather use appropriate to your playing situation. As I have said elsewhere my own personal favourite tuba to play is currently the new Wessex Wyvern, at least in my orchestra - and that is 5/4 (some would say 4/4). But if I was supporting large concert band as only bass, then a 6/4 would be the best tool for the job.

[Rivercity Tuba]

I equate playing a 6/4 tuba like driving high performance car.

Having owned five or six different German-made ones (pitched in C) and one US-made one (pitched in Bb), I would sorta describe it as the opposite.

maneuverability/response - sluggish
steering - off
flashiness factor - more so: when standing still

I'll gladly openly admit that the fad has sustained itself (so far: 35 years ) since a Swiss maker first made a sort-of copy of an ancient US-made one...and (again) I believe the fad has sustained itself via a "H-D motorcycle-ish" type of appeal. (i.e. "Wow! Look at THAT! Do YOU know what THAT is?"), but I do predict that it will eventually wane, and that the wane will be from the top-down. (Who still manufactures "jumbo" sousaphones? Why not?)

Again, the Yamaha 826S (reviewing: considerably cheaper than a decent fiddle, and right around the price of a decent bassoon) is the best I've encountered of all the 6/4-size instruments in the CC dept. - as is the Seigfried in the BBb dept. (both very well-deserving of their retail prices), but (though I probably didn't spend enough purchasing it to demonstrate that I'm "serious" in my pursuit self-improvement of my "art") I still prefer what I have (perhaps a half-size down in size, but a size up in maneuverability/response/steering...oh, and - when I race the engine, I like the sound of mine better (plenty of body, roundless, power, even jollity, yet with more ~clarity~) .

Often we see people being chosen for high-profile(-to-us) full-time playing positions (based on the sonic appeal they had to a committee of musicians in the ensemble - when they were using a particular instrument) and then promptly-or-eventually going off and purchasing a totally different-sounding instrument. Of those who have done this (as a mostly-silent up until now fly-on-the-wall regarding this particular phenomenon), I've seen one (an extremely thoughtful and analytical player) who (tuba-wise) seemed to have made (what I consider to be) some very smart post-hire equipment choices.

The topic is not so much "what is popular" or "what would really sell a bucket load at a low enough price point, but (rather) what is truly of the most use to a tuba player sitting behind c. 20 good fiddle players, and that most facilitates that player in carrying out their assigned tasks (i.e. per typical bloke threads: a far more controversial topic).

Bloke is spot on as usual

6/4 = Tractor Trailer Truck. I have heard one of the most prominent orchestral tuba players in the world say this and I agree.

[pwhitaker]

Last summer I sold my last BAT - a 1941 Holton 105 - and purchased a 1938 York 716 and a York Master. This was done because I'm too creaky, then being 74, to effectively cart around a 30+ lb piece of brass. I had been playing BAT's almost exclusively for 10 years up to that point and really enjoyed the PRESENCE and gravitas of the old American BAT. I also used a Rudy 5/4 BBb during that time which was also very satifying but, unfortunately, too fragile for me. I've been playing for nearly 65 years and have never had a horn like the York. It excels in all aspects (intonation, timbre, responsiveness etc.) and have received many kudos when using it. A previous poster likened moving from a 6/4 to 5/4 as removing the training weights from running shoes and that is a very good analogy. So I'm in Bloke's camp.

[southtubist]

I think the Alex 163 sort of falls in the 5/4 category. Realistically, I think I could do 95% of my playing (including large orchestra and band) on my 4/4 F tuba and still sound tasteful. It would take some specific practice, but it would be do-able.

I like the sound of a good F tuba player with a good trombone section. The blend is really nice.

[pjv]

Britain has been doing just this for years, but on Eb's.
Sure, some will take up a CC or BBb at times, but not all of the tuba players do this.

[Rick Denney]

Britain has been doing just this for years, but on Eb's.
Sure, some will take up a CC or BBb at times, but not all of the tuba players do this.

They certainly used to. I have a photo from Bevans's first edition of George Wall playing a very large Alexander--probably a 164. And we all know about Fletch's Holton. There are surely British orchestras these days where the tuba player will do everything on his Eb Sovereign, but it will absolutely provide a different sound in the orchestra.

To me, the point of an instrument like the Holton is a tonal structure that carries without being loud (my definition of "presence") or sounding like loud playing. But not all big tubas really do that. Those that do are more efficient; those that don't are less efficient. It's hard to generalize too much about big tubas.

Of course, some 5/4 tubas are as much of an air hog or scale nightmare as the worst of 6/4 tubas. So, among the great tubas, a few are 6/4, more are smaller. I think that's about the only thing I know for sure.

Rick "not thinking the average Eb Sovereign really sounds that much like the average German orchestral F tuba, however" Denney

[Peach]

Britain has been doing just this for years, but on Eb's.
Sure, some will take up a CC or BBb at times, but not all of the tuba players do this.

They certainly used to. I have a photo from Bevans's first edition of George Wall playing a very large Alexander--probably a 164. And we all know about Fletch's Holton. There are surely British orchestras these days where the tuba player will do everything on his Eb Sovereign, but it will absolutely provide a different sound in the orchestra.

To me, the point of an instrument like the Holton is a tonal structure that carries without being loud (my definition of "presence") or sounding like loud playing. But not all big tubas really do that. Those that do are more efficient; those that don't are less efficient. It's hard to generalize too much about big tubas.

Of course, some 5/4 tubas are as much of an air hog or scale nightmare as the worst of 6/4 tubas. So, among the great tubas, a few are 6/4, more are smaller. I think that's about the only thing I know for sure.

Rick "not thinking the average Eb Sovereign really sounds that much like the average German orchestral F tuba, however" Denney

There are indeed some in the UK using Eb for everything but, like most countries these days, most pros with full time symphony jobs try to use the right tool for the job (or at least close to). In practice that tends to mean one smaller tuba and one bigger tuba used almost all of the time. It is rare to find a UK symphony pro regularly using a bunch of different horns.

Which instruments these guys choose to play is almost always a 19" bell B&H/Besson Eb and a large C tuba (PT-6 possibly most common but all sorts including Thor, Yamayork, 2165 [Patrick!?]).
Four things I find interesting -
1. Fletch used his Holtons a lot in the LSO, moreso than the Eb so I hear (someone might want to confirm or deny this).
2. Nobody seems to play Bb these days even though our German chums do and most UK players treat the Eb as their go-to horn so the big horn is for the really meaty stuff
3. Nobody seems to regularly play F
4. The same thing Joe set out with tubas seems to be happening with bass trombones to some extent where players are enjoying the range of colours available from slightly smaller equipment - horns as well as particularly mouthpieces.