TubeNet

A thread questioning Mahler Tuba led me to this question...though I'm sure it may have been discussed before.

What Tuba "should be played" or what tuba did the composer "intend"?

Now......I believe there is quite a difference between a bass tuba and a contra bass tuba's sound. I liken tuba's to this.

Bb Tuba sounds closely to a CC tuba Bb Clarinet sounds very similar to A clarinet
Eb Tuba and F tuba...(can sound close) Eb clarinet

Now, the contrabass tubas definitely sound different than the bass tubas. And the Bb clarinet sounds very different than the Eb clarinet. This could be considered a stretch..but

I am going to assume that a "great" composer is educated on these differences. If the composer writes Bass tuba in his score, why is it we can decide to grab the other horn. Especially assuming there is such a difference between bass and contrabass horns. Wouldn't it make sense, that if the composer has specified what horn to use, that we use that horn? Generally you don't see a Bb clarinet player grabbing his Eb clarinet or vice-versa just because it may be easier or "sound better".

I know this is a great stretch of the imagination, but I tend to think that the labeled part is probably labeled such for a reason. The composer most likely didn't just write 'contrabass' or 'bass', simply because he felt like it.

Now....there of course is also tradition...such as the famous Meistersinger... F versus CC tuba. I'm not here to debate with tradition, only to ask that if a composer wrote 8 or 9 or 10 fabulous symphonies, and some specified 'contrabass' or some 'bass', why is it so easy for us as tuba players to dispense with their intention and say we know better.

I'm assuming this may create quite the conversation....I'm interested in seeing what other thoughts there are

pierso20 wrote:What Tuba "should be played" or what tuba did the composer "intend"?

I am going to assume that a "great" composer is educated on these differences. If the composer writes Bass tuba in his score, why is it we can decide to grab the other horn. I know this is a great stretch of the imagination, but I tend to think that the labeled part is probably labeled such for a reason.
Now....there of course is also tradition...such as the famous Meistersinger... F versus CC tuba. I'm not here to debate with tradition, only to ask that if a composer wrote 8 or 9 or 10 fabulous symphonies, and some specified 'contrabass' or some 'bass', why is it so easy for us as tuba players to dispense with their intention and say we know better.

I'm sorry, but you should play on whichever horn you see fit for any piece of music. Your assumption is just that...an assumption. I've met quite a few composers who still believe that just because something is relatively high one must automatically jump for the bass tuba. I get so tired of hearing "Which tuba should I use?"

If you're playing a solo, play the damn solo! You BOUGHT it, so play it on whatever you wish.

If you're paid to play, play whatever sounds best with that ensemble for that piece.

Do you think ALL trumpet players should pull out rotary-valved trumpets when they play Mahler or Wagner? Should EVERYONE play Bydlo on a period-correct horn? Should we all go find mouthpieces of the era of the composers? Unfortunately, this nonsense about what horn to use is NEVER going to stop because people aren't smart enough to use common sense.

Me'sa only own-a one-a tuba. Me'sa only play-a one-a tuba!

I've also met composers who are very knowledgeable to the differences of Bass tuba and Contrabass tuba. I am only inquiring as to if we should take this into consideration.

I'm not suggesting we be historical reenactments, however since many players have 2 horns and have the choice, why not take that into consideration?

Obviously, music has much room for individualization. That is what makes music so wonderful. That is why I can guiltlessly play violin or cello works on our big, shiny, metal horns. What I believe, is that people seem to assume that composers know NOTHING about the tuba.

This isn't an argument where I believe everyone is wrong. And this isn't simply nonsense, otherwise there wouldn't be such a wide array of thought on the matter. And definitely not a common sense problem. Obviously we want it to sound "good", but good is SUBJECTIVE. A piece of music written for "bass tuba" may sound "good" on either CC or F tuba, but what we can't miss is that they will sound DIFFERENT.

Just trying to keep it civil.

tubasinfonian wrote:Me'sa only own-a one-a tuba. Me'sa only play-a one-a tuba!

But if you had a choice from a tuba arsenal, I'm sure there'd be a choice to make.

But yeah, if you have 1, you play it.

Just to clarify, this is a question on thoughts and beliefs and theory, not on practicality. If you have 1 horn, we work with what we got.

As important as "THE" correct horn is ensemble balance. And musician confidence.

Time does not stand still. Would the composer have made the same choice if he had modern instruments and ensembles to choose from? You'll never know, much as you'll never know if a living composer would make different choices in the future.

All YOU can do is make the choices that you feel best represent YOUR interpretation now. Leave accuracy for the musicologists.

pierso20 wrote:Obviously we want it to sound "good", but good is SUBJECTIVE. A piece of music written for "bass tuba" may sound "good" on either CC or F tuba, but what we can't miss is that they will sound DIFFERENT.

Exactly! Good is subjective. What I find good/great, others may find crap. Of course bass tubas and contrabass tubas are going to sound different. For example, I prefer the sound of the Gregson Cto. on a contrabass rather than a bass. I prefer most music on a contrabass tuba.

What I do not like is how people will say that since *insert composer* wrote "bass tuba" on a piece that is must automatically be performed on a bass tuba and that anything else is wrong. The question of "Which horn to use" is really a question for those with the luxury of multiple instruments. By that, I mean more than two. If you have two, and one is a bass tuba, then it's not too difficult to decide.

Believe me, I was not coming down on you. I apologize if it came off that way. I simply believe in putting that hunk of meat in your skull to work.

-

It is possible that composers choose the term "bass" tuba to ensure that it is a low note playing tuba as opposed some other thing which to less educated but highly skilled composers might conjure up other, less "bass" sounding notes.

It could also be possible that composers are afraid of the term "contrabass" tuba and think that it is some unheard of, rarely played thing, similar to the contrabass sax or contrabass clarinet or even contrabassoon. Though found, they are rare, you must admit. Other than a contrabass viol (double bass), we are the only other instrument that is "contrabass" that is used regularly. How many composers are really going to know that though??

tubasinfonian wrote:It is possible that composers choose the term "bass" tuba to ensure that it is a low note playing tuba as opposed some other thing which to less educated but highly skilled composers might conjure up other, less "bass" sounding notes.

It could also be possible that composers are afraid of the term "contrabass" tuba and think that it is some unheard of, rarely played thing, similar to the contrabass sax or contrabass clarinet or even contrabassoon. Though found, they are rare, you must admit. Other than a contrabass viol (double bass), we are the only other instrument that is "contrabass" that is used regularly. How many composers are really going to know that though??

This is probably a good thought. Much more in line as to what was going on in my head....though I'm terribly at articulating things when I'm on the computer...too many things going on at once. (often sitting here with my cute little F on my lap)

Here's a thought...

How much time do you think most composers really spend thinking about the tuba part f their music, as opposed to, say, the strings or upper woodwinds/brass. I would be willing to bet (as has been stated) the "bass tuba" or "contrabass tuba" distinction is made 9 times out of 10 for range, not color/depth of sound. Most listeners, even the really good ones, aren't paying enough attention to the tuba part to notice.

--TM, who recalls speaking to a friend with a composition degree who said he wrote a piece with muted tuba, not because he liked the sound or wanted it in there, but because he wanted to watch the tuba player take the mute in and out of the horn three times during the performance.

TexTuba wrote:

pierso20 wrote:What Tuba "should be played" or what tuba did the composer "intend"?

I am going to assume that a "great" composer is educated on these differences. If the composer writes Bass tuba in his score, why is it we can decide to grab the other horn. I know this is a great stretch of the imagination, but I tend to think that the labeled part is probably labeled such for a reason.
Now....there of course is also tradition...such as the famous Meistersinger... F versus CC tuba. I'm not here to debate with tradition, only to ask that if a composer wrote 8 or 9 or 10 fabulous symphonies, and some specified 'contrabass' or some 'bass', why is it so easy for us as tuba players to dispense with their intention and say we know better.

I'm sorry, but you should play on whichever horn you see fit for any piece of music. Your assumption is just that...an assumption. I've met quite a few composers who still believe that just because something is relatively high one must automatically jump for the bass tuba. I get so tired of hearing "Which tuba should I use?"

If you're playing a solo, play the damn solo! You BOUGHT it, so play it on whatever you wish.

If you're paid to play, play whatever sounds best with that ensemble for that piece.

Do you think ALL trumpet players should pull out rotary-valved trumpets when they play Mahler or Wagner? Should EVERYONE play Bydlo on a period-correct horn? Should we all go find mouthpieces of the era of the composers? Unfortunately, this nonsense about what horn to use is NEVER going to stop because people aren't smart enough to use common sense.

Geez - that's a lot of vitriol for a good question. If you're "tired" of certain questions, perhaps another forum is right for you...

It's a good question. As to "balance" issues with the other brass, they are just as responsoble for balance as you are. If the piece is a bass tuba part, then they should balance accordingly.

Your point about Clarinets is close to my usual argument. If you wouldn't use a Euphonium on a "Bass Tuba" part, why would you use a contrabass tuba? They are all three different instruments. Historical context must also be borne in mind. Ultimately, we are afforded greater flexibility than any other instrumentalist, because our instrument is so young and not standardized. But with that comes some responsibility to the music for clues, and the other brass musicians are not immune from responsobility to balance to the ensemble they are in, regardless of size or instrumentation, including a smaller tuba.

J.c.S.

J.c. Sherman wrote: Historical context must also be borne in mind. Ultimately, we are afforded greater flexibility than any other instrumentalist, because our instrument is so young and not standardized.

J.c.S.

What a good point. Standardization and the current lack there of. I like it!!

One point to be made about trumpets though: typically in orchestral parts, if a part calls for a certain pitched trumpet, it is more often the particularly pitched instrument for the key of the composition. Overall key is chosen for timbre more times than the instrumentation. A lot of timbral differences can be achieved by raising or lowering the pitch of a piece of music.

Horn on the other hand transposes without changing keyed instruments.

I've often wondered (again, the standardization issue??) why tubas aren't treated like our trumpet brethren and write parts for specifically pitched tubas. This would take out some of the mystery for non-tuba folk, IMHO.

It'd also make life a lot easier when switching between axes!!

J.c. Sherman wrote:Geez - that's a lot of vitriol for a good question. If you're "tired" of certain questions, perhaps another forum is right for you...

It's a good question. As to "balance" issues with the other brass, they are just as responsoble for balance as you are. If the piece is a bass tuba part, then they should balance accordingly.

Your point about Clarinets is close to my usual argument. If you wouldn't use a Euphonium on a "Bass Tuba" part, why would you use a contrabass tuba? They are all three different instruments. Historical context must also be borne in mind. Ultimately, we are afforded greater flexibility than any other instrumentalist, because our instrument is so young and not standardized. But with that comes some responsibility to the music for clues, and the other brass musicians are not immune from responsobility to balance to the ensemble they are in, regardless of size or instrumentation, including a smaller tuba.

J.c.S.

Actually, it is a good question. It's a question that has been repeated ad nauseum. If you don't believe me, check the archive.

Answer me this:
If we are to be THIS sensitive over which horn to use for music, then why do we even bother to play transcriptions? Bach NEVER meant for his cello suites to be played on tuba, right? In what "historical context" would you put tuba players playing the bassoon concertos of Mozart? Hell, why do we even play solos that are written for trumpets like Carnival of Venice? Do you know what the usual answer is to these questions? I usually hear, "I do because I want to. I think it's great music and I want to play it on tuba."

THIS is why I think it's ridiculous to even wonder about which horn to use on a tuba part when we can "give our interpretation" on music that was NEVER meant to be played on tuba! It is plain and simple hypocrisy.

If that doesn't make sense, then you might very well be right about me being in the wrong forum.

Which tuba to use is a question I ask myself whenever I receive an orchestral part for a forthcoming concert. I think there are multiple factors to consider.

1) The historical context. E.g. If it is Berlioz it would have been written for small C tuba, or ophicleide, but if Russian most likely BBb.

2) What, if anything is marked on the part (bass, or contrabass), but to be considered in context of the part and the tradition. Much of German romantic music is marked Bass Tuba (such as Bruckner 4), but was that just because that was the regular tuba in orchestras at the time, or because that produces the tone the composer intended?

2) The range covered by the part. If there is a lot of moving around down low then that points to contrabass, while a lot up high to smaller tuba.

3) The orchestra I am playing with and venue. This week I will perform Elgar Enigma Variations on my Eb because it is with a chamber orchestra and the trombones are using narrow bore pea-shooters. If I was playing the same work with my main orchestra which has double the strings and wide bore trombones, I would no doubt be playing on my Neptune CC.

4) The taste of the conductor for large or small tuba. Can be important to get future gigs with the orchestra. I have experienced different conductors appreciate differing tuba tone.

5) But most important: What I think will sound best and the tuba/s with which I feel I can make the best job overall to present the music to the audience.

Neptune's right on!!

Tex, why is it that you and others get mad at the use of the furum for questions? Why is it bad to get fresh ideas and fresh answers, especially to timeless questions? Plenty of us are happy to offer thoughts. It's hardly criminal to ask a question again.

Again Neptune's on the money. As for playing cello suites, EVERY performance is a transcription. I (almost) never advocate bringing in a bloody Vienese Bombardon to play some Wagner in a modern orchestra. You make choices. And you bring what will make the "transcription" work. Even historic perfomance/original instrument ensembles - if they're good - realize they're never going to be an exact replica of the premier performance of the St. John Passion, any more than a tuba quartet (well, maybe a little closer). Truly, all music is in all of our perview. But we can make educated choices about how we want to sound, and what a composer was working with. Though we are inquisitive about which tuba to use in which Mahler symphony, Mahler also arranged Beethoven Symphonies (if you haven't heard any of these transcriptions, do yourself a favor and hear some - WAY cool!).

Working from a point of ignorance is inexcusable and sophomoric. Making choices even effects your use of a tuba in a Bach transcription for tuba quartet. Are you going to play the top part on CC tuba and leave the euph to the bass line? I suppose you CAN, but maybe a little knowledge will tell you the reverse might work a little better...

J.c.S. (who admits to bringing ophicleides and cimbassi into the works of verdi)

I say let's just unleash the GOD of Thunder on all of it and let the other gods sort out the carnage when its over

Neptune wrote: 2) The range covered by the part. If there is a lot of moving around down low then that points to contrabass, while a lot up high to smaller tuba.

Neptune, I really enjoyed your post, very thoughtful. I have to observe that point #2 above is something I continually see as a reason to choose between bass and contrabass parts.
For me, the real choice centers far more on the tone quality produced in a certain range on a certain tuba than it does just range in general. I've heard some simply say, "the range (tessitura) is high on piece X, so I'm playing on a bass tuba," or "that piece is written primarily below low Gbb , so I'm using a contrabass." I find that I have the same playable range on bass as I do on contrabass, with the same reasonable security, pitch-wise. For me the decision has far less to do with the actual written range, and far more to do with the tone quality produced and the role it plays in the ensemble.

jonesbrass wrote:For me the decision has far less to do with the actual written range, and far more to do with the tone quality produced and the role it plays in the ensemble.

Agreed. When I questioned John Adams about how he comes to write any particular tuba part, he indicated to me that he hears it within the ensemble, and NOT as being a particular instrument used. So ensemble balance is the desire of many prominent composers, not just individual sound.

It has already been mentioned that our instrument is young and not standardized. This is particularly true in the difference between bass and contrabass tubas.

Even just since the 1950s, think about the playing qualities of bass and contrabass tubas, compared to today. Tonally, how much difference is there between some of the popular "6/4" bass tubas of today vs. the common CC tubas used by professionals in the 50s?

The comparisons to other instruments (Bb v. Eb clarinet) doesn't seem to work considering the tonal difference between those two instruments hasn't experienced the same evolution.