TubeNet

Ok, the whole mess on the"uncle beer is mean" thread got me to thinkin(of which no good can ever come).Yes,exerpts for violinists are technically much harder,but, to play violin(or other soprano instrument) exerpts on the tuba would be significantly more difficult,if for no other reason,the sheer scientific challenges.Watching a violinist play fast staccato 16ths with a tiny wrist movement just doesn't seem like as much work as fast stacatto 16ths on tuba.So,not really knowing the answer to this,let's discuss the level of respective challenge between tubists,and say,oboistst in an orchestral setting.Is it really easier to play a perfect ride or metamorphasis than the standard oboe exerpts(of which i'm ignorant)? A perfectly wholesome topic with NO possibility of hurting anyone's feelings

I've thought about this a lot.

It seems to me your question breaks in two directions. One, do tubists on the whole express the same sort of musicality expected of even run-of-the-mill oboists or violinists? I think it would be rather hard to support that case based on my own experience. It's something we should work on. But I don't think that means we try to play treble music with treble sensibilities. More on this later.

The second is should we expect tuba players to show the same level of technique as would be expected from even a run-of-the-mill oboist or violinist? The answer to that is clearly NO.

There are tuba players who can play technical violin music and make it sound musically convincing. Baadsvik played Vivaldi's Winter with a high degree of accomplishment in last year's Army Conference. But did he play with the same technique that would be displayed by a violinist of his rank among violinists? Not even close. Clearly, the size of the instrument is the reason. Another example is Sheridan's phenomenal (for tuba) Monte Csardas. His technical headroom is so high that he can load the music with the stylistic cues that make it the Csardas--a gypsy dance. But just about any good gypsy fiddler could likely do the same.

We often look to the inhuman extreme like Sheridan or Baadsvik to show that the tuba can match treble intruments in performance potential. But I think they succeed as much because of the expectations they violate as by what they accomplish. Isaac Stern, to name one of dozens of examples, could in his sleep, and probably when he was a fairly young student, rip through material that would be beyond all but the tiniest handful of tuba players, and demonstrate more musicality in the process just because of not having to devote so much energy to the technique. That doesn't make the work of those few tuba players any less impressive, of course, but it's only impressive in the context of playing the tuba.

I recall once when a very well-known string-bass soloist played a work intended for 'cello. He did a credible job, considering he was playing a string bass. But it reminded me of the old joke about the talking dog: the miracle is not that the dog talks well, but that it talks at all. To any ears who just wanted to hear the music as intended, it would have sounded better on the 'cello. And it would not have required as skillful a 'cello player to make as convincing a musical statement.

Back to the issue of musicality. I think it's likely that our best tuba players have musicality to match the best on any instrument, but I think they reveal it when they play music that sounds best on a tuba. When Gene Pokorny played for the Army Conference crowd, he did not give us a showy technical demonstration. Rather, he played an old hymn tune in the low register, as if sung by a bass singer. It was breathtakingly beautiful. Then, he did something only a tuba player could do. He played the same tune down a fourth. And then down another fourth. And finally all in the pedal register, with pitch clarity and musical control that did not diminish compared to the first time around. Everyone in that full auditorium knew that he had just established absolute musical and technical superiority among tuba players. And he did so by playing something that no violinist could hope to achieve with the same impact, because the violin is just too small.

Rick "who is hopeless trying to impress any treble instrument performer with technique, but who concentrates on what tubas were developed to provide" Denney

I have the naïve idea that if the music was printed it is playable. If it seems impossible, it means you need more work. I don’t let range, rhythm, or the length of a passage get in my way. I will try to play it. I don’t make excuses.

LoyalTubist wrote:I have the naïve idea that if the music was printed it is playable. If it seems impossible, it means you need more work. I don’t let range, rhythm, or the length of a passage get in my way. I will try to play it. I don’t make excuses.

Let's see you tackle the 32nd-note runs in the transcription I recently played of Tchaikovsky's Marche Slave. It was written, and it said "tuba" in the corner. I sure as hell feared it. I expect there are a handful of players who can make it sound good. I'm not one of them.

I'm at the point in my playing career when if I can't play it second or third time through, I'll need three weeks. And if it can't play it then, I'll need three years. If it's still beyond me, it probably always will be.

But I beg of you: If you play in a section, and you try to play something and can't quite get it, I'd much rather hear excuses than fearless hacking. Remember the first rule of ensemble playing: Do No Harm.

Rick "too old for bravado" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Remember the first rule of ensemble playing: Do No Harm.

Rick "too old for bravado" Denney

That is one gem of a statement -- do you mind if it is quoted from time to time (with full credit to you, of course).

JB

JB wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Remember the first rule of ensemble playing: Do No Harm.

Rick "too old for bravado" Denney

That is one gem of a statement -- do you mind if it is quoted from time to time (with full credit to you, of course).

JB

Actually, the sentiment extends back into antiquity. Rick's borrowing of it is quite appropriate, however.

http://www.eastridges.com/wesley/primum.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

gwwilk wrote:

JB wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Remember the first rule of ensemble playing: Do No Harm.

Rick "too old for bravado" Denney

That is one gem of a statement -- do you mind if it is quoted from time to time (with full credit to you, of course).

JB

Actually, the sentiment extends back into antiquity. Rick's borrowing of it is quite appropriate, however.

http://www.eastridges.com/wesley/primum.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

Of course; and I didn't even make the connection. Thanks for the links.

Still, I rather like its application to ensemble playing -- it says a lot in a few words.

I basically agree with Jonathantuba's comments,but,you only have to experience the delight on an audience's face once after wildly exceeding their rather low(pun here) expectations with a little flashy technique to be hooked.I'll never forget my little trio's(banjo,tuba,guitar) first gig for the largely older ladies' Music Study Club.They literally cheered at my mediocre by tubenet standards solo on Avalon.So, there's definitely some merit in the occasional untubalike flashy solo...

There are exceptions to this (Rick described what sounds like an outstanding one, and Carol Jantsch's Khatchaturian was another); but MOST of the tuba solos I've heard reminded me of chainsaw sculptures: it's impressive that someone could make something recognizable and relatively attractive with it, but it is neither the best tool for the job, nor the best job for the tool.



The tuba, to me, is at it's most expressive as it supports an ensemble, whispering one moment, thundering the next, bouncing lightly here and pounding like Odin's hammer there, sometimes soaring (in a relative sense) and at other times rattling so low that it is more felt than heard. Yes, the average person on the street (or in the violin section ) isn't the least bit aware of how important that role is, but so what? They know when they are moved by music, and WE know that they would not be as moved without the bass. If I never hear or play a tuba solo, that's okay with me, because I'm very happy with this role for the instrument.

I'd also point out that there's no reason a person can't be both a fine tuba player, and ALSO play an instrument better suited for solo work. A lot of you guys play guitar; a lot of others play euph and/or trombone; some play horn; some recorders; a few fine pianists, as well. When I'm in a mood to play melodies, or if I were asked to play a solo for my church, I'd definitely play trombone or euph before tuba, because the instruments are just much better suited to solo work.
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who expects and respects opposing points of view.

I'm not sure I understand this discussion.

You are bound by brass technique, as are all brass players.
If you play high, you may impress tubists and not many others, but Maynard's playing impresses brass players, but not so much others.
Tuba players have a wide range of music to cover which is already written for ophecleide, French C tuba, tenor tuba, bass, and contrabass. Impresses tubists and not many others.
Trumpet players have baroque music that the "unwashed masses" don't think is so high and difficult. Impresses trumpeters, but not necessarily even tubists.
Tubists are impressed by the things that are difficult for them.
Are woodwinds, keyboards, and percussion different than strings? Emphatically, YES!
Does anyone care? Emphatically, NO!
Is there some kind of test that they give to children to see if they are able to communicate and master more, and then assign them to strings(or any other instrument)? If there was, I missed that day of school (which is probably why I play tuba... no, I take that back... there IS a test for tuba: can you carry it?).

windshieldbug wrote:... able to communicate and master more...

I wish I'd thought of this phrase when posting what I did above. It's EXACTLY what I was trying to get at: that the tuba can COMMUNICATE the same thing (sadness, joy, etc.) as another instrument, but that it doesn't necessarily do it by sounding the same. The tuba "communicates" these thing subtly -- perhaps even subliminally -- whereas other instruments do so in a more obvious way. To me, this takes AT LEAST as much 'art', though often less 'technique'. It takes, I think, a very generous spirit to give one's artistic ability in this way, knowing that it will have an effect, but that the affected person won't fully appreciate that contribution. This is why the best tuba players tend also to be some of the nicest folks in the music world.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who adds "...and why I like to think of myself as a tuba player first and a trombonist second, even though I'm definitely better on trombone."

JB wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Remember the first rule of ensemble playing: Do No Harm.

Rick "too old for bravado" Denney

That is one gem of a statement -- do you mind if it is quoted from time to time (with full credit to you, of course).

JB

Credit not needed. I borrowed it from Hippocrates, though it was in the public domain.

Rick "who wishes doctors would read the oath they took a bit more often" Denney

Dr. Rick Denney
Resident Hippocritic Genius

Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 1824

MikeMason wrote:I basically agree with Jonathantuba's comments,but,you only have to experience the delight on an audience's face once after wildly exceeding their rather low(pun here) expectations with a little flashy technique to be hooked.

Of course, you are making my point. The only reason it impresses is because it is played on a tuba, not because of its absolute musical power.

In the TubaMeisters, we found that we affected people as much with Edelweiss as with The Clarinet Polka. But the effect was a response to music in the former case, and merely being impressed in the latter case. It was not for lack of skill (both were played by first-class performers--i.e. not me). Showy virtuosity is impressive, but Edelweiss is a good song.

Rick "who is a much better tuba player than his rendering of treble technical music would suggest" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Let's see you tackle the 32nd-note runs in the transcription I recently played of Tchaikovsky's Marche Slave. It was written, and it said "tuba" in the corner. I sure as hell feared it. I expect there are a handful of players who can make it sound good. I'm not one of them.

I haven't seen it, but I know the 32nd note scale runs in the band transcription of William Walton's Crown Imperial March are possible with a lot of effort. I am not talking sightreading here.

Also, there are publishers who experiment with impossible passages, who do not have the foggiest idea of what tuba players, or any musicians, are capable of doing.

I haven't followed this thread all the way through, however...

Comparing tuba excerpts with oboe excerpts is an unrewarding endeavor. The difference between the two instruments doesn't allow for many comparisons on a technical level.

Suffice it to say that the vibrating reed makes the sound on oboe, on the tuba the sound is made by vibrating flesh. The tubist is much more closely related to the singer than to either the woodwinds or strings.

You can compare tuba to the other instruments in the product. Does the tubist sound smooth and clear? Do the extreme ranges sound difficult? Is the facility and technique without blemish? Lastly, does the tubist make musical statements?

I don't see any other way to make a comparison. These are the questions I would ask in judging a performance by any instrument.

It's too easy to allow these questions to be answered by saying, "Well, that's the best a tuba can sound." The technical "limitations" of the tuba have to be overcome and THEN the tubist can be compared with the great instrumentalists on any instrument.

People instinctively expect a tuba to be clumsy and slow- I guess because it's so large. The valves are very large and it speaks late due to lenghthy
plumbing. But there are zippy players who amaze us all by ripping off a fast 16th or 32nd note run and actually pulling it off. It sounds great!
Tell you who's fast and a tubenetter is our buddy, Doc, who recently posted some tracks on tubenet. He plays a big CC and can rip off 16th note runs in any range at polka tempo (130+) clean as country water. He probably double tongues this stuff but it sounds like single tongueing.
Go Doc.

Rick Denney wrote:

When Gene Pokorny played for the Army Conference crowd, he did not give us a showy technical demonstration. Rather, he played an old hymn tune in the low register, as if sung by a bass singer. It was breathtakingly beautiful.
--------------------------------
I heard that on the web. It was stunning.... Liked it so much I quickly wrote off a copy for myself (Be Thou My Vision). I'll be d*mned if I can't make it sound as nice as Pokorny. But I keep trying...

Ken S.

KenS wrote:I'll be d*mned if I can't make it sound as nice as Pokorny. But I keep trying...

On his last couple of iterations, he was playing notes I can't even make, let alone make with clarity and musicality. And he was adjusting the fourth-valve slide through about three trombone positions to make sure the instrument was centered on the pitch he wanted to make. On notes in that register, I can hardly even tell what pitch I'm playing.

Rick "more awestruck than by a thousand Czardases" Denney

Where can one acquire a recording of this? I'm sure someone has it somewhere...