TubeNet

Just seen the post on the monster tuba with 7 valves , I mean what is the point?
I just prefer playing on a free blowing and simple british style tubas , it can take loads of abuse and is good in all registers.
don't we make things complicated by adding extra rotors , valves , slides?
playing a British style tuba makes life easier on repoirtoire ( Harrisons Dream , Revelation , Tristan Encounters , All the Flowers of the Mountain , Of men and Mountains , Freedom ) am I the only one who thinks simple is best??

I totally agree with you, Nick. For the type of playing many of us do, four valves is enough.

I resemble this thread!

Sorry, I dont agree.

Or I didn't understand the double Tuba post (That is very possible since my English is trouble) or I think, in fact that is in some aspects the simpler tuba possible.

In that tuba we dont need combinations of valves.

All brass instruments have that problem. And the tuning problems the system carries. I know, we dont see this as a complex thing. And that tuba "looks" complex. But I imagine it is extremely easy to understand and play. (Could be only my imagination...)

So, playing that tuba would be like playing a saxophone. Each note a position. Simple.

NickJones wrote:Just seen the post on the monster tuba with 7 valves , I mean what is the point?
I just prefer playing on a free blowing and simple british style tubas , it can take loads of abuse and is good in all registers.
don't we make things complicated by adding extra rotors , valves , slides?
playing a british style tuba makes life easier on repoirtoire ( Harrisons Dream , Revelation , Tristan Encounters , All the Flowers of the Mountain , Of men and Mountains , Freedom ) am I the only one who thinks simple is best??

Why use a calculator when I could do the same thing with an abacus, slide rule, or table of logarithms?
Why play music on a pipe organ when simple, inexpensive instruments abound? Heck, why not just whistle?
I think that Dr. Young's horn is a great research product and that many things were learned. Thank heaven for independent inventors.

Why make things complicated

It's human nature...

As musicians we don't need 53 valve horns but they're very cool to look at. If someone has a desire to make & play this instrument, I think it's great! It's not going to change the way "we" play music but it's a great invention that should be looked at for what it is and not taken too seriously....

http://www.cooltubas.com
[/quote]

Mike Johnson wrote:Although Dr. Young's Instrument is impractical for most applications, it's people like that who keep us moving forward, or we'd still be on Ophicleide's!! (I've just bought one)

I'm really struggling with this one... it seems that not only are we going back to more fingers being used, but heavier, as well!

Mike Johnson wrote: 4.Although Dr. Young's Instrument is impractical for most applications, it's people like that who keep us moving forward, or we'd still be on Ophicleide's!! (I've just bought one)

Oh yeah? Do you have it now, or is it on the way? Playable? New? (well, you may laugh but I think someone in LA was making them, maybe 15 years since I heard anything about that though.) Big one, or more in the euphonium range?

I heard one only once, but the sound was very nice, sort of like a euphonium with a warm, woody bassoon color.

trseaman wrote:

Why make things complicated

It's human nature...

As musicians we don't need 53 valve horns but they're very cool to look at. If someone has a desire to make & play this instrument, I think it's great! It's not going to change the way "we" play music but it's a great invention that should be looked at for what it is and not taken too seriously....

http://www.cooltubas.com

[/quote]

Needs a bigger bell

Donn wrote: New? (well, you may laugh but I think someone in LA was making them, maybe 15 years since I heard anything about that though.) Big one, or more in the euphonium range?

That'd be Robb Stewart.

NickJones wrote: am I the only one who thinks simple is best??

Nick,

I am also one who belives simple is best (when possible). My main tuba is a 4 valve Alex. I have also played some Besson E flats that I thought were very nice.

regards,
Mark

Dr. Young is a physicist who has studied acoustics carefully and published scholarly papers on the topic. He has worked with Arthur Benade, Arnold Jacobs, and Philip Catelinet over a long career as an accomplished amateur tuba player. I don't think you can dismiss his ideas as emanating from a crackpot, even though he can be, um, colorful from time to time.

He established a requirement for the tuba: Every note in the bottom octave would be played using a single valve (plus, when necessary, a pair of switch valves operated by a single control), and every note in the bottom octave would be played through tubing that is tunable directly for that note and only that note. Those requirements fit with his concept for the instrument, and his tuba is a realization of that concept.

I have seen him write that the tuba may not be practical or completely successful in meeting other requirements, but that it was the first of a kind that would have benefitted from further development along the same lines. It's a good point: Perhaps the impracticalities of his tuba could be managed better with a little development work.

As I understand it, he started with a King Symphony Bass, a pit instrument that already had the tall design. He had Gronitz do the rest of the work.

Most would agree that it is too heavy and too large for practical widespread use. But those were not his requirements.

And most would agree that having a perfectly tuned first octave doesn't mean the upper partials will be in tune.

But my main beef with his objective is that it ignores the fact that there is no standard of tuning. Intonation is a moving target, depending on the ensemble, the key of the work, the harmonic structure, the period of the music, and even the instrumentation. An instrument tuned to a well-tempered (or just, or Pythagoran, or...) chromatic scale is likely to be out of tune in many real playing situations.

Again, however, those were not his requirements. He was going down a particular path, and decided to pursue it as far as he could make it go. Those sorts of experiments teach us things.

Rick "who greatly respects Dr. Young even though four valves have seemed to be enough on his Bb tubas" Denney

One might say that tuning is a passion with Dr. Young and he has a great deal to offer.

For example, consider this paper on tuning that he did over 7 years ago:

http://www.tuba.com/e/tuning_a_tuba.htm

Interesting article -- thanks, Chuck!

All I need is a well made instrument which is reliable , and I don't have to worry if I have expensive rotors , extra valves or slides which are easily damaged .
Maybe as I have been brought up playing Miraphone ( British and Continental Eb's, Besson , Yamaha and Conn tubas , I prefer the simplicity of a compensating British Style tuba ) , myself I have a damaged tendon in my right hand causing my little finger to be in a clenched position all the time) , and playing a 5 valve instrument would cause playing problems.
at the moment , I play on a 5 year old Besson Sov 982 (modified by Besson with a 981 leadpipe ) , and a 1994 Besson Sov Bb , quite lucky that both instruments are free blowing and not stuffy , If these instruments are good enough for James Goulay and many pro's , they suit my needs.
I have also looked and played a Besson 980 (17inch), smaller bell than a normal sov but mega in the lower register.
this year I will have to try other instruments ( continental type) to see what I am missing.

Chuck(G) wrote:One might say that tuning is a passion with Dr. Young and he has a great deal to offer.

For example, consider this paper on tuning that he did over 7 years ago:

http://www.tuba.com/e/tuning_a_tuba.htm

This paper, demonstrating the theoretical "perfection" of intonation (setting aside the usual flat harmonics, the usual sharp harmonics, and the quirks of assembly, age, wear, ergonomics [or lack thereof] etc.) is one of the reasons I chose a 3-valve comp, along with the fact my right pinky is over 3 cm shorter than my other fingers, and being left handed playing a right handed horn, my left hand would not subordinate to my right on combinations of a 3 + 1 horn. Finally, I play in community bands and lodge bands, and I have no need of anything below the 123 E natural, although I do occasionally pull my third slide to get a really good bottom of the trench last note Eb occasionally.

As bloke says, to each his own, and I do enjoy my Besson. Yes the valve block is complicated. But so is a modern Windows or Mac style computer, in order to make things such as this forum more user friendly, especially as compared to, say, the older version of this forum. Another example is a modern automobile with power and automatic everything, as opposed to a manual choke, manual transmission, crank to start or separate starter button, etc. When engineered properly, which for its purpose it is, the original Blaikley system does do a good job for band tubas.

NickJones wrote:Just seen the post on the monster tuba with 7 valves , I mean what is the point?

Daryl Fletcher wrote:

NickJones wrote:Just seen the post on the monster tuba with 7 valves , I mean what is the point?

I'd be willing to wager that each valve is attached to a reed, and one just "blows" and plays it like a harmonica. Probabl meant as a kids' toy.

Chuck(G) wrote: Probabl meant as a kids' toy.

Probably so.

Chuck(G) wrote:

Daryl Fletcher wrote:

NickJones wrote:Just seen the post on the monster tuba with 7 valves , I mean what is the point?

I'd be willing to wager that each valve is attached to a reed, and one just "blows" and plays it like a harmonica

... not too good for 12 tone music, either!