TubeNet

Messing around with a couple of new mouthpieces has gotten me to thinking about "light" versus "dark" and tuba tone.

What tone qualities do you think of when you say that the tone on a tuba is "dark"? How about when it's "light" or "bright"?

What playing situations would you prefer a dark tone over a light tone? What situations would you prefer a light or bright tone over a dark tone?

Why?

I don't use those terms because they are too subjective. I refer to the amount of fundamental and the amount of harmonic content in the tone. I think it is appropriate to reduce harmonic content when one needs a quiet, mellow, subdued tone. When doing a dramatic sFz, then maximum harmonic content works for me -- probably best described as a controlled blat.

Not to dodge the question, in my mind, "dark" and "light" refer to the amount fundamental in the tone. I don't associate the terms with the amount of harmonic content -- I think a dark sound can still have plenty of harmonic content.

In my dictionary, a tone lacking in harmonic content is a "dead" tone.

It is interesting to me that parallel to this idea is the current rage among flute players to use heavy, more dense metals (gold, platinum) for construction rather than the silver that was in vogue a few decades ago. When I listen to my wife's gold flute, I hear more (exaggerated) fundamental tone, lacking in the higher overtones itself, but with more of a power to produce sympathetic overtone vibrations.

In terms of subjective description, I would say that it is a darker, yet more projected sound. (Nice bouquet, tart nose, clean finish, everything I would expect of a pinot noir in this price range... )

The problem that I have with subjective sound determinations is that a) the mouthpiece often makes more difference in the sound than in the intonation b) I find it impossible to accurately determine what listeners are actually hearing in the hall vs. what you perceive close up c) the act of playing makes differences in things your audience may not hear, but you do, like your personal resonance, the instrument's response, etc, and d) the instruments reaction to embouchure changes as opposed to length changes (slide pulling).

And to further obfuscate the topic, I often refer to tone as being harsh or mellow; I've heard dark sounds that are quite harsh and bright sounds that are quite mellow. Personally, and using my own definitions, I like a bright sound that is mellow, followed by a dark sound that is mellow. I have no idea what a player does to produce a dark, harsh sound, but I know a horn player who does just that. He sounds brighter on my horn but still harsh, using the same mouthpiece on both.

MA

I've heard "dark" defined as "rich in fundamental". This makes no sense to me. A tone that is all fundamental is not rich at all, as Wade points out. My term for a tone that has little harmonic energy is woofy.

The fundamental of a tone is created when the sound has a wide range of well-tuned overtones. Those overtones provide a difference tone that is the fundamental of the pitch. Tubas that have the deepest sound are the same instruments often described as being colorful, and these are the sounds that have a rich array of well-tuned overtones.

Put a large, deep funnel on my Holton and it is woofy. Put a slightly smaller mouthpiece with a little cup in the shape, and it becomes colorful while maintaining the depth that one gets with a Holton. Example of the former: Revelation 52 that came with the instrument. The latter is a PT-48, which is a great mouthpiece for a big tuba, but potentially dangerous on an instrument like a Miraphone.

When people say "dark", I think they really mean "deep", and it takes a range of harmonic content to produce that. When they say "bright", I think they mean colorful, but not as deep. As Wade says, both require a healthy range of harmonic content. Sounds that lack harmonic content are neither dark nor bright, but are rather woofy or thin.

Mellow versus harsh is a different characteristic, which I think relates less to the mix of overtones and more to the way the sound is propagated from the bell. That does not explain the differences Rob noticed in his test of various Thors. I think I need some serious time with several Thors to be able to comment on that. A year or two ought to do it.

Rick "who strives for resonant harmonics" Denney

the elephant wrote: With the advent of the graphical Internet we have enough people in one place at any time to finally do these things.

And it's one place in the sense that we can all hear the same things, so for the sake of discussion, here's a great tuba player (Sasa Alisanovic - I think - with Boban Markovic on "Bistra Reka".) I suppose it's bright for sure, but ... what would you call the sort of velvety quality? (I guess for you legit players, this may be kind of like a wine critic trying to apply his thinking about fine Bordeaux to some moonshine sipped from a jar, so don't listen if you're too sensitive!)

Lekovito Kolo

I would describe a light sound as one that is more direct and clear, making it better for solo playing. The sort of sound more characterized by F tubas, although other pitch tubas can have a light sound when matched with a shallower cup mouthpiece.

A dark sound, I would consider more enveloping with lots of depth making it preferable for providing the bass line. More the characteristic sound of a big BBb tuba.