TubeNet

I've talked to some brass band conductors and players who are adamant about never using F tubas, and to a lesser extent CC tubas, mixed with Eb and BBb horns in brass bands. Their primary complaint is about intonation conflicts.

At NABBA, I saw bands with great tuba sounds with mixed horns. I don't see that it really makes a difference so long as you do your best to keep every note in tune.

Any opinions from people with experience one way or the other?

I know in the Georgia Brass Band, we had 2 Eb, 1 BBb and a CC tuba. I don't think it matters in the US what kind of tubas you use, as long as the players are cutting it on the parts.

For the average community brass band (here in the US at least), I think that it helps to have Eb and BBb instruments. At least that way the band can be out of tune together, thus being in tune

Intonation benefits of an Eb/BBb section probably diminish as the level of players increases.

The band I play in has an Eb, BBb, and my CC. I think it has a lot more to do with how you do, than what you do it with!

Most of my experience was playing BBb with Faireys for a year, but I would say the EEb is definitely superior to the F. I think that most of the 3+1 BBb's out there are not so good.....dogs, reallly. We did one experiment with a band where we used 2 Besson 981's with 2 4/4 Hirsbrunner CC's and the sound was amazing! The intonation was sooo much better and things just really locked in, but you'll never see CC tubas in a brass band outside of this country.

I think that the EEb/BBb tradition is probably the best option. It's really that homogenized blend that makes the brass band sound. Listen to bands like Faireys, Black Dyke, Grimethorpe, BAYV, or Fodens and you'll hear that it works just fine. I'm not saying that using F's or CC's is wrong or doesn't work, but for my ear (and most of the brass band community that is NOT American), I like that 'traditional' sound.

BTW, my first brass band experience was playing a UK premiere of a Swiss contest piece with an all-star band at the RNCM about 3 weeks after I got in the country.....on my HB-2P!!!!

Yeah, Bb treble clef on a CC tuba....on the fly.....not easy! But the written pedal D's (ie, open pedal CC on the Hirsbrunner) were awfully fun at the end...

my highschool band and my youth orchestra both had mixed tuba sections and they were (in my opinion) phenominal. all in all, play with a tuner, find your tendencies and work to fix them. nothing is better than a good ear.

-casey

There are at least two economic factors that make CC tubas predominant in the States for the BBb Bass part in brass bands:

1. "Serious" tuba students are instructed at most universities and conservatories in the US to own and play CC tubas in lieu of BBb tubas. That means that these fine players will have invested many thousands of dollars into their CC equipment. To ask them to then go and buy a BBb tuba in addition to their CC is prohibitive. Remember, there is no "lottery" to benefit brass bands in the US as there is in the UK. Which leads to the second point...

2. Most BBb tubas used in the top bands in the UK (and perhaps 3rd and 4th section bands, as well) are owned and provided by the band itself, not the individual player.

For whatever it's worth, I've recently seen two sets of brass band parts that had CC concert pitch bass clef parts on the back of both the BBb and Eb parts. It has become quite common to use CC with BBb, but the uses of CC on Eb parts is becoming more common. A small CC often has a sound that compliments Eb parts quite well, and a CC can read treble clef Eb parts easily by adjusting the key and fixing a few accidentals. I don't believe anyone had addressed that combination.

While I am personally only interested in playing BBb and Eb, I just don't see that much problem in mixing the other horns in. Then again, I also think that using F horns instead of Eb blatweasels is a better idea . . .

. . . but I sould NEVER use trumpets instead of cornets in brass band, even with soloists.

bloke wrote:
I'm fairly certain these were designed to be played while resting on stands. These instruments can be adapted for better lap-mounted eronomics with a Yamaha YBB-321 mouthpipe.

These were designed by John Gillam, ex Brighouse and Rastrick and latterly Black Dyke. He's very tall and about 25 stone in weight, and has no problem playing them normally. I've never seen anyone use a stand over here in a brass band of any decent standard, though that isn't to say there aren't any.
I'm not too small (6' and rather rotund!) but can play my slightly lowered 994 on my knee quite happily. Luckily, I do most of my playing on a 992, the "concert" model with a straight leadpipe that sits very similarly to an EEb.
Back on topic, I've used both rotary BBb's, a York Master BBb and sat in a section with a CC in brass bands over here. From my perspective as an experienced "top-ish level" brass band BOC, none of the above work.

tuben wrote:...I think the difference is in construction type, many if not most F tubas are built as soloistic instruments and don't produce that dark, super smooth sound that brass bands demand....

Do you allow your Eb players to bring any Eb tuba? I think your statement above is quite plausible, but it limits the Eb player not to Eb, but to bass tubas that sound like a big Besson/Boosey Eb. Those instruments have a very different sound concept than do most F tubas, but they are different than most other Eb tubas as well.

I've played, for example, the Willson 3400 Eb and 3200 F tubas side-by-side, and I hear little or no difference in the tone they produce. Maybe a big F tuba like the Willson (or like a Yamaha 822) would have a big, smooth enough sound to satisfy the need.

My B&S F tuba is plenty loud, but I would not characterize the sound as you have above. It was clearly designed to produce a singular orchestral voice, or to blend with trombones if anything, not to blend with other tubas. But my little Yamaha 621, though limited in how big a sound it can produces, blends very effectively with tubas and euphoniums.

Rick "wondering what a brass band would think if the Eb player showed up with an 80-year-old Eb Monster Bass with three valves" Denney

My inflation-adjusted $0.02:

In general, I think that most American brass bands do not have the British sound concept. Cornets tend to be played too much like trumpets and overall, the dynamic level is usually too loud. Consider, for example, BBCF, which , although being a very fine US band (last year's NABBA champion), competing in the 2005 British Open, yet not even placing in the top 10 of 25 competitors.

Contrast this, say, with the National Band of New Zealand, competing in 1953 and winning the Open, in spite of being a pick-up band (2 rehearsals together). I have a tape of their 1953 performance and it's amazing.

Clearly, there's something more at play than technical accuracy and "correct" instrumentation.

Does using a CC tuba for the BBb part matter? Probably not as much as using a suitable instrument for the Eb part (which, being higher, is generally more audible in terms of differences. I suspect that the problem overall lies primarily not in the instrument, but in the style in which it's played..

Perhaps if one has the correct idea of style, the instrument choice will naturally follow.

All that being said, I think there's no way to satisfy the sound concept of the Eb bass by using a 6/4 CC or BBb on the part.

All that being said, I think there's no way to satisfy the sound concept of the Eb bass by using a 6/4 CC or BBb on the part.

Absolutely! However, a small CC can do pretty decently on Eb parts. On BBb parts, though, it think that the bigger the sound, the better (but not necessarily the bigger the instrument), so long as the horn can be played well in tune and so long as the size of the horn doesn't get in the way of precision.

I suspect that the following :-

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:22 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For whatever it's worth, I've recently seen two sets of brass band parts that had CC concert pitch bass clef parts on the back of both the BBb and Eb parts.

Is more to do with the publisher putting out parts for Continental European use where reading of Bass Clef is the issue rather than having thoughts as to what type of instrument should be used.

Andrew M

Chuck(G) wrote:In general, I think that most American brass bands do not have the British sound concept. Cornets tend to be played too much like trumpets and overall, the dynamic level is usually too loud. Consider, for example, BBCF, which , although being a very fine US band (last year's NABBA champion), competing in the 2005 British Open, yet not even placing in the top 10 of 25 competitors.

One of the things that repels me about brass bands is that it is contest-oriented. I realize that it's a great motivator for some, so for those of you who relish it, blessings upon your house.

But when there are contests, there is adjudication. And where there is adjudication, there grows an orthodoxy about method that stifles unorthodox interpretations, even those that are artistically valid. Think of things like figure skating, where maintaining the prescribed form is more important to many judges than producing beauty. For a sport, that's fine, but I don't get it for music.

I wonder if the BCCF was really outshone musically by the other bands in the British Open, or whether the judges reduced their scores because they didn't have the prescribed instrumentation, look, or sound. I wasn't there and I'm not making accusations, but I can see where such orthodoxy is a natural outgrowth of activities that are adjudicated as their primary measure of success.

Rick "who has heard some impressive music in the brass band movement, but who would rather be moved than impressed" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:But when there are contests, there is adjudication. And where there is adjudication, there grows an orthodoxy about method that stifles unorthodox interpretations, even those that are artistically valid. Think of things like figure skating, where maintaining the prescribed form is more important to many judges than producing beauty. For a sport, that's fine, but I don't get it for music.

Of course, that's why Mahler iis played by kazoo bands the world over to packed houses. One aspect of musical interpretation is imitation (or othodoxy, if you will). I'm not particularly interested in hearing someone's "original" interpretation of the Mozart horn concertos unless that same person has a solid knowledge of traditional interpretation. Ink on paper will get you only so far in many cases.

If you will, orchestral music is largely a competitive affair. Musicians compete and are judged just to get a spot on the team. In the world of selling tickets and making recordings for sale, an orchestra is implicitly in competition not only with currrent performances, but also with performances by long-dead or retired performers. Or to put it more bluntly, why should I pay $50 to listen to a mediocre live group stumble their way through a performance when I can buy a CD of a legend for $15? Yes, it's not very fair, but few things are.

I wonder if the BCCF was really outshone musically by the other bands in the British Open

Sizeable chunks of the Open performances were posted on the net for all to hear. Having heard the top contenders, I for one tend to agree with the results of the adjudication.

AndyCat wrote:I've used both rotary BBb's, a York Master BBb and sat in a section with a CC in brass bands over here. From my perspective as an experienced "top-ish level" brass band BOC, none of the above work.

Why not, Andy? What are they lacking that the big Besson 3 + 1 BBb horns possess? And how would a 5'4" scrapper like myself deal with the beast? I played one at the NABBA show for about 7 minutes, and that was fine. But I would imagine after a 3-hour rehearsal that there would be some discomfort somewhere in my body! I've heard horror stories of tubaists getting sore shoulders, neck, etc. after long sessions with these horns.

On a related subject, Tubalawlisa wrote:

I was quite serious with tenor horn playing in my day. (I bought a nice, new Besson back then.) It's been a much bigger deal, as others have said, on the whole trumpet/cornet and French horn/tenor thing. Some of the biggest conflicts I've seen have been between applied high brass teachers who had a disdain for their students playing the "non-major" (i.e. especially tenor horn) instrument...

That resistance to acceptance of the tenor horn in American music schools might be changing, Lisa. At Northwestern U, Gail Williams offers opportunities for her horn students to perform on Eb tenor horn; in fact, it might be mandatory. Then there are universities who host strong brass band programs, such as James Madison University and University of Kentucky. They certainly use the real Eb tenor horns!

Steve Marcus
BBb Bass, Chicago Brass Band

Chuck(G) wrote:Of course, that's why Mahler iis played by kazoo bands the world over to packed houses. One aspect of musical interpretation is imitation (or othodoxy, if you will). I'm not particularly interested in hearing someone's "original" interpretation of the Mozart horn concertos unless that same person has a solid knowledge of traditional interpretation.

Well, we aren't talking about Mahler or Mozart. Neither one wrote his music in order to be impressive at contest.

Imitation and orthodoxy are not the same thing. Orthodoxy is when a judge says "that is artistically invalid and I will score it low because it does not conform to the 'correct' method as espoused by me", and imitation is "that was beautiful--I want to play it like that." They have different motivations.

And we aren't for the most part talking about professional orchestras. We are talking about amateurs (even if they are pros in other venues but amateurs in the brass band in which they play). The competiveness is the purpose of brass banding, and therefore it must be the prime motivation. It would not motivate me at all if a conductor said, "I prefer to do it this way, but the judges will like it better if I do it that way." I had enough of that in high school, and that was over 30 years ago. It's worse in schools today--many band directors (and their school districts) define their whole programs on the basis of contests, completely undermining any argument that music is an academically valid pursuit and instead making it look to non-musicians just like another sport.

I agree that I don't want an orchestra performance that I pay to hear to be marred by technical weakness. But I don't go to those performance to be technically impressed--my CD player will do that. I go to hear the sound and to feel the emotion that cannot be recorded. Without that, technical perfection serves no purpose.

Again, for those who enjoy the competitive aspects of brass banding, I have nothing but respect. I certainly respect the technical challenges and the commitment to precision. But I get enough competitiveness at work and music is what I do to be freely creative to the limit of my abilities. I would much rather compete with myself and my own artistic standards than compete with the person or band next to me.

Of course, your original argument was that the attitude (of American brass banders) that allows the use of any instrument if well played may be rooted in a fundamental lack of proper concept. That could be. I was trying to poke a stick into that to see if the "proper concept" is orthodoxy (for the sake of orthodoxy) or real quality. There are other possible explanations for the examples you gave.

Rick "who has quit bands that were too competitive" Denney

Steve Marcus wrote:
Why not, Andy? What are they lacking that the big Besson 3 + 1 BBb horns possess? And how would a 5'4" scrapper like myself deal with the beast? I played one at the NABBA show for about 7 minutes, and that was fine. But I would imagine after a 3-hour rehearsal that there would be some discomfort somewhere in my body! I've heard horror stories of tubaists getting sore shoulders, neck, etc. after long sessions with these horns.

Most dwarf like players over here sit with the bass on the corner of the chair with legs either side, which is fine til you get bucket like seats! Like I said though, there is a history of moving leadpipes as well as the standard 1st and 2nd valve chop, and I was lucky enough to have Besson's development technician work on mine with me to set it up.

I can't get to grips with the tuning on non compensating horns, or rather don't see why I need to bother when there is a more easily in tune instrument available (for me) that I sound at least as good but probably better on. The blend of sound just isn't there either, and the trickier low passages are harder without the independance of the (3+1) 4th valve in my playing experience. A couple of pieces were, for me, physically impossible.

In a brass band situation, the basses are more about the homogenous sound already mentioned. They're the velvet sofa that envelopes the rest of the band, and 2 EEb, 2 BBb 3+1 compensating tubas are, to my ears, the only combination that has worked in my experience. There's nothing better than feeling the hum of a quiet, in tune, balanced bass section in my opinion, and I think it's something you have to sit amongst to really experience.

As with all posts, these are just my opinions, not rules, and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, especially sat next to me, but it's just never happened yet. I'm, of course, coming at this from the opposite side than a lot of players over the pond, because most of my playing has been on these instruments.

Rick Denney wrote:Imitation and orthodoxy are not the same thing. Orthodoxy is when a judge says "that is artistically invalid and I will score it low because it does not conform to the 'correct' method as espoused by me", and imitation is "that was beautiful--I want to play it like that." They have different motivations.

A noteworthy aspect of the Open adjudication process is that the judges' commentary is published for all to see. The 2005 edition is probably still findable on the 4barsrest website, so you can judge for yourself as to the level of conformity that's required.

My allusion to Mahler and kazoos was lamely attempting to make a point. In music, imitation and orthodoxy share considerable common ground. The composer writes a work with the idea of a sound in mind. He in turn, gets his sound model largely from current musical practice. Using a tenorhorn mouthpiece in a tenorhorn (instead of a french horn mouthpiece in an adapter) is not only orthodox, it's imitative of the legions of tenorhorn players that have come before. You can't completely separate the two ideas.

Rick Denney wrote:The competiveness is the purpose of brass banding, and therefore it must be the prime motivation.

Not at all. I suspect there are a fair number of brass band musicians who would take strong exception to your statement. I belong to a non-competing brass band and we frequently use a recording by one of the top-flight British bands to get a good idea of how a piece works. There are a fair number of band directors in the band who have had their fill of contests, including the band's own director, who got his quota teaching band in Texas.

I go to hear the sound and to feel the emotion that cannot be recorded. Without that, technical perfection serves no purpose.

To me, the sound is everything. I scarcely pay attention to what's visually happening onstage. If I want visual stimulation with my music, I'll go to the opera or the ballet. The sight of musicians sitting around in monkey suits scratching strings and pushing buttons and emptying water from instruments isn't very stimulating., no matter what gesticulations the guy in front is making--after all, he has his back turned to the audience. It might be more interesting from a visual aspect if the orchestra were faced toward the rear of the stage--so one could see the stick action and facial expressions.

Of course, your original argument was that the attitude (of American brass banders) that allows the use of any instrument if well played may be rooted in a fundamental lack of proper concept. That could be. I was trying to poke a stick into that to see if the "proper concept" is orthodoxy (for the sake of orthodoxy) or real quality. There are other possible explanations for the examples you gave.

Here's a stick of my own to poke and see what twitches. One of the big differences between concert (symphonic) band music and brass band music is that much concert band music was intended to be performed out-of-doors and most brass band music is intended to be performed indoors.

What do you think?

Rick "who has quit bands that were too competitive" Denney

From what I've heard about Texas school band competitions, I suppose I don't blame you one bit.