A question about Tuba notation in brass quintet arrangement

[Tubatoad]

The question is this: in a brass quintet arrangement, is the tuba part sometimes meant to be played transposed down an octave?
Here’s the background: I switched to BBb tuba 3 years ago after playing trombone for 35 years. My only playing venue has been my church group, where I play the bass line from the hymnal, etc. taken down an octave. So the highest note I ever needed was D in the staff. Aside from looking at some Tubachristmas music, I had not seen any “realâ€

[Rick Denney]

The question is this: in a brass quintet arrangement, is the tuba part sometimes meant to be played transposed down an octave?

No. Quintet music, if it's properly notated, will be played as written, just like all other tuba music outside the British Brass Band tradition.

Quintet music typically sits higher in the range of the instrument than does music intended for larger ensembles. I can speculate on several reasons. One is that the tuba has a cleaner sound and a clearer pitch on the staff rather than below it, so it sounds better with a small ensemble. Another is that quintets are often written with advanced players in mind, and these players enjoy playing the higher parts and can do so comfortably. Still another is that close harmony gets muddy and indecipherable if it falls below the staff, and composers/arrangers usually want to avoid, say, a third of the chord being played that low. Finally, the tuba part is not always the bottom part, and on some occasions may play above the trombone (for example, when the tuba and horn are playing a duet in counter point to a trumpet/trombone trio). Dropping the part an octave in that case may invert the chord in ways not intended.

Now you know why I prefer to use an F tuba in quintet.

That said, for most straightforward tuba parts, dropping the tuba part down an octave probably does no harm, and if it is easier for you to play it accurately and musically (as it would be for me on a BBb tuba) then the result will probably be better.

Rick "noting that some arrangers may be assuming bass tubas instead of contrabass tubas" Denney

[imperialbari]

Rick's is a fine display of an amateur tubists point of view.

As a musician working with scores I would say this:

The relation between the bass and the contrabass functions can get quite complicated.

When composers like Bach wrote their chorales (in Bach's case a widely expanded interpretation of the "hymnal" concept), they wrote it in a notation indicating all of the SATB voices being in the 8 foot range, which is considered "loco" (in the right place) in most notation concepts. However the human choral voices without saying were assumed to be doubled by the organ:

The SAT voices were doubled upwards in 1, 2, or 3 octaves depending on the sound wanted by the organist. I my country there is a tradition of letting the organ play next to full tilt on the last verse of a hymn.

The S voice may also be doubled one octave down. I am not happy with that practice in instrumental performances, as it tends to cloud the musical lines of the inner voices. However churchgoers are well acquainted with this doubling practise, as that is what most male voices do in the plainsong.

IF the SAT voices are doubled upwards, the Bass voice also can be doubled upwards. It is not necessary for the harmonic functions, but it adds definition to the bass line.

The bass line almost without exceptions is doubled one octave down in church contexts. Cathedral type churches often have 32 foot stops allowing for the bass line to be taken down 2 octaves. Dioceses claiming their own special divinity sometimes have organs with 64 foot stops taking the bass line 3 octaves down. Here we enter frequency areas rather felt than heard. And such preposterousness can backfire.

One of our main cathedrals, 32 foot organ level, had its building structure compromised by a fire. Leading to a ban of the use of the 32' stops.

If you are playing traditional hymn stuff, play the 8' or 16' (bass or contrabass) lines as you like it. Plenty of samples out of the Danish and US/UK traditions to be found here:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... %20salmer/

and here:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... g%20Years/

Later on composers, and even more humble arrangers, got very specific about choice of bass-(and tuba)-line octaves:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... 0%20music/

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... Reiter%20/

Change the octave in these samples and you will find yourself in dire straits musically. This posting just has been an attempt to provide you a bridge over troubled waters, musically spoken (if I could).

Klaus

[Leland]

Wow, a lot more thorough than I would've posted...

For typical arrangements, the tuba part is written in the "correct" octave, with no transposition.

While playing hymns, though, I sometimes switched octaves depending on what else was going on. My church had a real live pipe organ, and we would trade verses, usually playing full-bore organ + quintet in the last verse along with an added descant part for the trumpets. By that point, for example, I usually took my part down yet another octave (or at least the notes that made sense to do so). Whether it made a different for the congregation or not, I never found out -- but it was fun from our seats.

Our situation was also why I turned down the opportunity to buy my high school band director's Yamaha 321 Eb tuba. It just didn't have the oomph that I wanted to use in that church.

[imperialbari]

By that point, for example, I usually took my part down yet another octave (or at least the notes that made sense to do so)

The parentheses hold the core of the problem!

Around 1975 an article in a brass related magazine or newsletter (I don't remember which one) issued a strong criticism against the editional practises of a major US brass ensemble edition's house.

The object of the criticism was the practise of making the bass lines of music for smaller ensembles like 4- and 5-tets multipurpose for euph, bassbone, bass tuba, and contrabass tuba.

This was done by writing the bass line in double octaves in the passages, which were to low for euph or too high for contrabass tuba. The problem was/is that neither score nor part indicated which was the original bass line as written by the composer.

And composers, the better ones at least, actually tend to be very particular about their bass lines. For centuries a work method of composers has been to write a particel (or Particell depending of language). Basically a sketch containing the melody and the bassline (which ideally also should have melodic qualities).

Even Mozart did so, even if he has not been reported to follow the "sleazy", at least lazy, practises of some renaissance and baroque composers, which wrote the particel only for their dance music, which were the pop tunes of that era. They then had students filling in the blanks in form of two or three inner voices. (I don't work from handwritten sources, but even in modern re-issues, I have met inner voices, which were extremely odd in the given style context, like wrong dissonance resolutions. Probably student work).

Back to the bass lines: their ranges were determined by their main carriers, the human voice and string instruments. The human bass normally is said to bottom out at F at the bottom of the bass stave. But I have met choir singers easily going down to C a fourth lower and still having a full sound. The bass viol went down to D and the cello goes down C.

Traditionally the contrabass stopped at E a sixth below the cello C. Modern string-makers have changed that, but still many orchestral bass lines don't go lower than E, so that the contrabass line could be executed a perfect octave below that.

Tuba players will see this in practical contexts, at least in brass bands. In music written exactly for that format, the Eb tuba is the main tuba. But when playing arrangements the situation is different.

There the true representant of the bass line often is the euph and/or the bassbone with the BBb tuba playing the contrabass line a perfect octave below. The poor Eb tubists are left with the task to jump up and down between the contrabass and bass lines. Very frustrating because the melodic aspects of the bass line are compromised. (And yes: I have been there on all the parts mentioned, plus a few more).

Can these compromises be avoided? Hardly!

When I wrote the tuba part for my arrangement of Four dances from Læsø, I did it with a US tuba friend in mind. He is known from this forum. He is well bestowed with fine tubas in BBb, CC, and Eb. The part was written with his contrabasses in mind. No regrets about that. But it has made it hard to move the setting to other ensemble formats, because the bass instruments cannot cover that range:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Yo ... Dances%20/

Back to our original poster: You did the right thing in taking the bass line an octave down on your BBb!

But then I have to touch the topic of brass quintets playing 4 part hymns. Rumours have hit my ears, that it is a general practise to have the trumpets and the horn playing the SAT lines with the trombone and the tuba doubling the bass line in octaves.

That is very bad in my ears for several reasons:

We love the bass line, but it is only the secondmost important part, which should not be the most powerful one.

The horn is not the optimal tenor of the brass 5-tet. The trombone is. And the horn is a very good alto.

The cissy, when it comes to stamina in a brass 5-tet, is the first trumpet. Let the 2nd trumpet take some of the workload. If the horn complains fatigue, then sprinkle in a few verses with 2 trumpets, trombone, and tuba representing the SATB lines. In most church hymns the bass and contrabass representations of the B-line are equally valid.

Which takes me back to the Leland quote.

It takes some musicianship to juggle between the bass and contrabass lines in a musical fashion. In general octave shifts should only happen at the breath marks after each phrase. And if the note before the breath mark calls for a resolution, then that shall be respected.

A very common tuba cliché is to take the last note in a hymn an octave down (changing an upward fourth to a downward fifth. Most often fine! But if the last move of the melody also is a downward fifth, you introduce a breach of one of the most basic hymn rules: don't create parallels, especially not between the outer parts!

Long? Of course! But short even for a crash course.

Klaus

[Chuck(G)]

Not to add or detract from Klaus or Rick's fine answers, but I think the most likely explanation for consistently high tuba parts is that the author/arranger wrote the part to be played by tuba or bass trombone.

Sometimes the givewaway is that low notes are parenthesized or written as ossia, where the author wished that a bass bone had the ability to sound the notes, but knew that a tuba could.

It's also true quintet parts are generally written higher than normal contrabass tuba band parts. Cold entrances on middle C or higher are not uncommon.

Klaus is also right about being careful about doing willy-nilly transposing. For example, take a simple I-V alternating bass line and take only one of the pair and transpose it up or down an octave. Doesn't have the same feel does it? Often, the bass line carries a melody of its own and shouldn't be transposed piecemeal without analyzing what it does to the overall sound.

[imperialbari]

Sometimes the givewaway is that low notes are parenthesized or written as ossia, where the author wished that a bass bone had the ability to sound the notes, but knew that a tuba could.

If only there is such indication of the notes/octaves, which do not belong to the original bass-line/-melody, then I will count such an edition very responsible. Computer based music engraving has made such indications easier, even if they still are time consuming to implement. My way of indication is to reduce the size of the noteheads in the "wrong" octave.

As for the extended tuba ranges in brass quintets: they are necessary to increase the number of colours and tricks for an ensemble type, which inherently comes with a fairly limited box of tools. But good taste always should be applied. I once heard a brass quintet play a well known opera excerpt on the radio. The not very happy high range tuba playing hit my ears like an arrow. It certainly added to my disappointment, when it was announced, that the performers on that CD were the probably most known brass-5-tet ever.

As for compromises on the bass lines:

Ideally they should be avoided, but sometimes they should be encouraged. In certain situations the alternives are either compromises or no ensembles.

Chuck(G) and I both write arrangements for flute choirs. Ideally these at least should comprise one bass and one alto flute. But flute demographics do not support that ideal. Often an alto is the only one aside from the always plentiful sopranos. So one has to compromise, if one wants to support ensemble playing in such situations. Approaches to that can be seen in my Danish hymn project.

Some marching youth brass bands skip the BBb tubas. I find that a great pity and would suggest the employment of small BBb's like those from Yamaha, Weril, or Jupiter. But those bands survive. And that is the important thing.

Klaus

[MartyNeilan]

In general, yes, play the BQ parts as written. Since this subject has largely mutated into a discussion on church music, I want to throw something additional out. If you are in a small to medium sized ensemble, there are times when you may actually want to take the part [img]UP[/img] an octave. Arrangers Kingsmore and Clydesdale are notorius for writing the majority of the tuba part well below the staff. I often find myself counting the ledgers when I read their parts, many times hovering around 5 ledger F. If your group does not have a strong bass trombone player playing the octave up, I would strongly suggest getting out of the subbasement for the majority of the charts and [img]only[/img] playing in the octave around the bottom of the staff. The end result will be much more clarity and probably a more in tune sounding chord - avoiding a 2 octave or more gap between a "mud and growl" tuba and 2nd trombone. Camp Kirkland charts are, IMHO, a good example of arrangements that work equally well with a smaller or larger group, they are in a more practical range the majority of the time.

[Tubatoad]

Many thanks to all who posted replies, and thanks especially for taking the questions of a novice seriously. You guys are great!

I realized reading the posts that in trying to shorten my original post I edited out some important pieces of the story. Of course, by doing so the responses covered more aspects of music and were all the more educational. I really appreciate it.

Although I expected ledger lines, I wasn’t too surprised to see the part was in the higher range as I’ve listened to brass music for many years. And yes, while challenging, I nailed the cold entrance on A below middle C, though it was a challenge. (35 years of trombone helped.) The problem came when the group put it all together. A high tuba descant for part of a verse would not have been a surprise, but generally you don’t hear it for the entire piece, and no bass line to be found. Especially when played together with a 1st trumpet descant in the last verse. I did pass the trombone on the tenor line. Taking the tuba down an octave was a group decision, strongly supported by the trained musicians among us. The arrangement then became S1, S2, A, T, B, and really did sound good (and a lot more comfortable for me). I’ve been invited back next year. (Got compliments from people who don’t even owe me money! )

Thanks again for all your help,