TubeNet

The sore point of helicons, as mentioned, is the transportation. However the helicon could be revived by some re-designing, that incorporated transportation as well as balance, as in easy holding, aspects.

I have a full circle Eb narrow bore helicon, which is nothing more than a low bass trombone. I can crawl into it, but only by sacrificing a good playing position for my right hand. If helicons in Eb shall work, then they shall be made for grown-up males. Smaller persons still will be able to use them.

This photo shows an attempt torevive the Eb helicon based on a York Eb sousaphone body and a York Eb tuba bell:
As I havn’t played this instrument I only will comment on the ergonomic aspects. The non-full circle design allows for more inner space. The detachable bell potentially easens the transportation aspect, but but then the lack of a case able to hold body and bell was the designer’s reason to sell this instrument, which he had used for street gigs. In my eyes the bell protrudes too much for a perfect balance. Still this instrument represents the best compromise with respect to the available parts.

The next photo represents an attempt to make a CC helicon:
Alone the tonality of this instrument based on a BBb sousaphone body makes it interesting for certain market niches within the premier military bands doing parades as well as seated concerts. The added 5th valve contributes to the overall high-end impression. This instrument appears to have a better balance due to the less protruding bell, which is non-detachable due to the time consuming work of aligning bell and body in the Eb sample seen above here.

If an instrument like this Buescher had been designed from scratch, it would have been possible to design it with a shorter detachble bell like on the old King 2341. The body collar still could have been supported by a stay. The neck could have been placed to allow for a more standard solution with bits, The slides might have been placed to be less vulnerable. Of course more modest 3 or 4 valve versions would be possible as would BBb versions.

Just speculations.

Klaus

BigDale wrote:Why? Because the trend of the "modern" marching band for the past 4 decades has been to the marching tuba, copying the drum corps style hornlines.

Do you expect to see marching tubas in the DC/Arlington ceremonial bands?

Do you expect strolling street bands to use marching bugle-style instruments?

Klaus

BigDale wrote:

imperialbari wrote:

BigDale wrote:Why? Because the trend of the "modern" marching band for the past 4 decades has been to the marching tuba, copying the drum corps style hornlines.

Do you expect to see marching tubas in the DC/Arlington ceremonial bands?

Do you expect strolling street bands to use marching bugle-style instruments?

Klaus

Sure, in another 40-50 years or so. The future is upon us. It took how long for the sousaphone to replace it's parent? It will take at least as long for modernization to occur. Availability and tradition are the only holdbacks. You could just strap on a smaller BBb too or a full size Besson 4V like the British bands do.

Nothing proves itself having any value just because it is considered modern. Those doing advanced movements DCI-style claim that bugle style basses give them more freedom in their moves. I will not dispute that.

Helicons, sousaphones, and contra-bugles all are tough on one shoulder or another. However on-the-shoulder-bugles are plain insane compared to the circlophones, when it comes to balance. Any moving object works more stable the lower the center of gravity. This also goes for complex set-ups like a player with his/hers instrument.

Marching upright tubas is very common in Europe. The old style German/Czech tubas in general were very light and had few valves, very often only 3. These instruments are not as tough to march as are the heavier British tubas, not to speak of the Conn 20J’s marched by one US university. These heavy tubas tend to move the center of gravity too much forward for a comfortable body posture.

There always will be trends and fads. Those striving to be modern for the sake of modernity, may experience some temporary fun and boosting of their self-esteem (or rather their lack thereof), but they will waste lots of money and never be really satisfied, because they always have to try out the next gimmick on the market.

Klaus

I have marched with a Helicon (1919 Conn 3 valve BBb, USQMC issue) many times - a big problem is close order drill! The bell sticks out farther than any other marching instrument (maybe excepting a 5 drum multi-timbales rack) and I have hit some people on the head with it.

Also, the sound is very directional - a row of matched Helicons would point all of the lower end off to one side of the band.

Without a detachable bell, a Helicon is much harder to store and transport than a Sousaphone. I still remember the massive lump of fiberglas and plywood monster case that Allan Jaffe used with the traveling Preservation Hall Jazz Band.

However, for a strolling jazz band, Oktoberfest or Balkan Brass kind of gig, a Helicon is great!

BigDale wrote:

David Richoux wrote: However, for a strolling jazz band, Oktoberfest or Balkan Brass kind of gig, a Helicon is great!

Ah...there is the answer. Use the best horn for the gig!

This is the best answer. I keep a helicon around to use only a few times a year... Volksfests, Strassenfests, Kuntsfests, Oktoberfests, and a few strolling Dixie and Christmas gigs. But...I have the luxury of being able to keep a 'stable' of horns in my music room for just about any occasion that comes along. If I could own only one horn, it would probably have to be a concert horn with an upright bell.... or maybe just have a detachable extra upright bell for my bell-front King.

I've marched with tubas, helicons, Sousas, convertible tubas and contrabass bugles. To start, those convertible tubas and contra bugles are horrible! I found the ones I've played to be very tinny and stuffy as well as difficult to use. The worst part is that you need to hold the horn. The other options are strapped to your chest or wrapped over your shoulder leaving your hands and arms free to rest and make adjustments. Also, once you put on any of the other horn they stay there in playing position (more or less). This style makes you lift it onto your shoulder before every tune.

I've always wondered what happened to the old raincatcher style sousas. I've never used one but I understand the bell could face upward and/or forward making it suitable for marching and concert settings. It seems like a good concept because the bell wouldn't stick out like a helicon and it would be well designed for marching.

Mike-ICR wrote:I've marched with tubas, helicons, Sousas, convertible tubas and contrabass bugles. To start, those convertible tubas and contra bugles are horrible! I found the ones I've played to be very tinny and stuffy as well as difficult to use.

Well...I can see where that comes from with the convertibles, but not with the marching tubas...
But I do agree that I don't get why we don't have the raincatcher sousas anymore. In fact, didn't Sousa invent them so the bell points straight up because he was tired of the bell being right near his ear?

Indeed Sousa and J. W. Pepper developed the original sousaphone, what we now call a "raincatcher," for that very purpose: sound up, like in orchestra.

Then others wanted the sound forward instead of up for field and street marching, and so with Conn and then every other maker we have the now conventional front bell sousaphone configuration.

What was said earlier about the sound going off to the side and the logistical problems of maneuverability are also reasons for using a souzy instead of a helicon.

There is only one person on this forum, and I can't remember who it was, who put forward any good reason to use a shoulder tuba instead of a souzy: the knees hitting the bugle on some high-stepping routines, causing instability. Yes, I lost my mouthpiece and bits my first show as a freshman in high school during the high-stepping run-on that my school's marching band director used. But I got used to it and never lost them again, and learned how to maneuver so it was never an issue.

Why no helicon?

-Rain. Pretty easy to figure this one out.

-Directionality. As noted above, helicons push the sound off to the players left and up. This is fine while being seated, but not so great for the football field.

I don't quite agree with the notion that the corps-style horns will replace sousaphones. Sousas are really no harder to maneuver, when matched in weight. In fact, physics (really not much to dispute here) that a instrument with a lower center of gravity and a lower polar moment would be easier to manage. A sousaphone offers both of these. However, because most sousaphones are quite large (a Conn 20K is a 6/4 tuba, most other "standard" sousas are probably around 5/4 size horns) and braced for abuse, they are heavy. If people tried to march a 20K or 40K sized horn in 3 or (God forbid) 4 valve horn that was wrapped in a "corp-style" manner that was braced well and made in the same gauge of metal (for the required durability of a high school marching band), then I would predict serious injury.

As it currently is, corps-style horns are relatively light and small. They do offer a compact lean sound, but a band of equal number of well played sousas will sound to have more bottom end. It's like comparing a band of equal ability with a bass section of four players. However, one band has Miraphone 186 BBbs and the other band has Holton 345 BBbs (assuming all horns are in good playable condition). The bands will offer a far different sound. This analogy is similar to corps-style horns versus Sousaphones.

Marching concert style tubas offers the same relative problems as corps-style horns. They do not have as good of CoG or polar moment as a Sousaphone, so they cause the players to lose overall agility. Playing a concert bass for standing and walking gigs is fine (I did this quite a bit at one point) and might be fine for parade duty, but the concert bass would have serious weaknesses on the field.

In regards to marching bands copying DCI, why is it DCI has abandoned G-pitched horns for Bb? One could easily argue that the old GG bugles sounded "better" than the BBb horns of today. In fact, one could argue an old K-90 sounds better than most of the stuff out now. There are a lot of tools available to do the tuba job today. I think the modern Sousaphone is probably the all around winner. Sure, some bands use the corps-style setup, but this often comes from a director (who often isn't a tuba player but a former DCI member or "fan") looking for that aesthetic. I have seen bands kick those horns "out of bed" once the honeymoon was over, because they would go to competition and get crushed (sonically) from a band with an equal number or less of competent sousaphone players. Often, the drill is just as sharp, as smaller kids can handle sousaphones better without training. In regards to the college level bands, I think you'll find most directors at that level understand the difference, and prefers sousaphones for more overall sound. Also, since most bands aren't only brass, the sousa "sound" just blends better. DCI groups aim for a homogeneous sound. That is their purpose and that is how they are judged. Marching bands are exactly what their name implies. A band on the field. I know as a player, when trying to blend with woodwinds, a bigger horn always seemed to work better from a harmonic perspective.

As for raincatchers, this seemed to be a good solution to make sousaphones into concert tubas. During indoor concerts, where the bell front in a large section would be overkill, a raincatcher bell could be utilized. This makes the horn more versatile, something important for a group on the road, even over 100 years ago.

Helicons are probably best suited for gigs where the tuba player is standing or walking, and by him/herself. They offer a concert tuba sound, with sousaphone CoG and comfort, and directionality isn't a huge issue, since the player probably wouldn't be locked into a formation, and could adjust for directionality (like we do in a concert situation while seated). That's why you see quite a few dixieland players use helicons. They are perfect for that type of job. But for marching band, they just don't offer the directionality needed.

Simply put, there are certain tools for certain applications. Helicons have a applications that they are very good for. However, the overall number of those applications is lower than others, so you see less of them. DCI-style horns work best in a DCI brass only environment, concert basses work best in sit-down concert situations, and Sousaphones work best in marching band situations. Sometimes you might see one out of context, but that is up to the discretion of either the player or director for some particular reason.

iiipopes wrote:Indeed Sousa and J. W. Pepper developed the original sousaphone, what we now call a "raincatcher," for that very purpose: sound up, like in orchestra.

Then others wanted the sound forward instead of up for field and street marching, and so with Conn and then every other maker we have the now conventional front bell sousaphone configuration.

Yes, but if the raincatcher bell could swivel from the upright position to the forward position why modify it to only face forward. If I'm correct about the operation of the raincatcher bell (I'm not positive) then isn't the "conventional" sousa a step backward?

It's only a step "backwards" if you turn the bell to face outwards instead of forward, so you functionally revert it to a helicon.

Remember, we are talking about outdoors, so directionality of sound is a prime consideration, unlike indoors where, as we've all learned, fundamental sound frequencies below 150 hz tend to be perceived as non-directional.

Just as my detachable bell variant 186 has a second retrofit upright bell to its original recording bell, and just as a King 1240/1 is available both ways, yes, it would be good to be able to put either a raincatcher bell on a souzy to use indoors or a now conventional front souzy bell on it for outdoors.

Also, one of the venues I play concerts in has a typical theatrical stage setup, with a tall ceiling on the stage area for the various curtains, backdrops, lights and sets. When I use an up-bell tuba on that stage, the sound dies in the curtains and rigging. I have to use the 38K to be heard out front at all.

So, there is no "backwards" to it. Just different tools for different venues for different kinds of concerts.

bloke wrote:They don't fit in sousaphone cases. *That's* why not!

Had raincatcher cases been available, you wouldn’t have sold your York helicon. And would the need for the Buescher then have come up?

Just speculations.

K

Helicons are far more practical than sousaphones.
Helicons could easily be made with short, detachable bells so that they could fit in sousaphone cases.
But nobody makes them like that.
People like to see those gigantic, wind-catching front-facing bells on modern sousaphones. Appearance trumps substance every time.

Art Hovey wrote:Helicons are far more practical than sousaphones.
Helicons could easily be made with short, detachable bells so that they could fit in sousaphone cases.
But nobody makes them like that.
People like to see those gigantic, wind-catching front-facing bells on modern sousaphones. Appearance trumps substance every time.

Allan Jaffe Sr. was a big Helicon supporter and he had a custom made Buscher with a detachable bell. It was no less fragile than any other horn, and he did not always take it on his tours. I don't know if Allan Jr. still has that particular horn - he tends towards a Sousaphone these days... when he is not playing string bass.

tofu wrote:Why not bring back the Helicon for marching

They do...or maybe they don't bring it back but still use it ...anyway...check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDyKx8nI ... re=related" target="_blank" target="_blank

With those short bells marching in tight formation might not be a problem. My 1918 Conn stuck out a few feet! Must have been the style of the time - a quick google image search of [ 1918 helicon ] shows mostly longish bells.

Sousaphones are better than contras for marching. All hail the 20k!!! What can you do on a contra that can not be done on a sousaphone? If people want to talk modern then we need a sousaphone that sits on both shoulders and disperses the weight not just on the shoulders but over the entire body and balances perfectly with a low center of gravity for quick changes in direction and sounds exactly like a 6/4 CC tuba with 5 valves and no stuffiness. It should also have rotary valves and be able to have the bell be pointed in any direction no matter how the tubist is standing. The mouthpiece should be able to reach the tubist regardless of size or posture. Someone go invent that and we can all sing its praises on tubenet.

ztuba wrote:Sousaphones are better than contras for marching. All hail the 20k!!! What can you do on a contra that can not be done on a sousaphone? If people want to talk modern then we need a sousaphone that sits on both shoulders and disperses the weight not just on the shoulders but over the entire body and balances perfectly with a low center of gravity for quick changes in direction and sounds exactly like a 6/4 CC tuba with 5 valves and no stuffiness. It should also have rotary valves and be able to have the bell be pointed in any direction no matter how the tubist is standing. The mouthpiece should be able to reach the tubist regardless of size or posture. Someone go invent that and we can all sing its praises on tubenet.

Do you mean something like a tuba version of this?
http://www.horncollector.com/Baritones% ... %20001.jpg (that horn has been nicknamed "Toilet Seat Baritone") or somewhat a more traditional valve front detachable bell recording bass with a top bow that loops back over the shoulders for support and a mouthpiece somewhere in the center? (Hard to describe, probably easier to draw...)

David Richoux wrote:With those short bells marching in tight formation might not be a problem. My 1918 Conn stuck out a few feet! Must have been the style of the time - a quick google image search of [ 1918 helicon ] shows mostly longish bells.

If style then determined by parameters simplifying production. That era had 3 versions of American circlophoniums:

helicon

raincatcher

bell-front sousaphones

The trick of keeping production costs down was using as many identical parts as possible. Hence the bodies were the same. Only that the helicon had a fixed bell and the raincatcher had the bell collars right after the main back bow, whereas the “modern” sousaphone had the collars after the body knee.

It didn’t matter much how high the raincatcher bell was sitting, whereas it was important for balance reasons that the helicon bell did not protrude too much. Hence the female branches of the main tuning slide were longer than on the sousaphone versions. bloke told about this difference a few years ago.

Klaus