Z-Tuba Dude wrote:If you were to play 100 different Bb's (of all vintages), and 100 different C's (of all vintages), I believe that you would notice that trends would emerge, which would support Paul's assertions. It doesn't mean that all Bb's HAVE to be more broad/dark/clumsy/ominous, but history provides a lot of examples of Bb horns, which support many of those characterizations.
I bet I've played a 100 different Bb tubas and 100 different C tubas. The trends related to the size and shape of the instrument are noticeable, but so overwhelm any other consideration that I don't think I could attribute any trend to the extra two feet of tubing.
A Miraphone 186 CC feels a little more responsive than a 186 Bb to me, but I can't tell any difference in the sound. Countering that, I've played a few Holton CC-345's and a few Holton BB-345's, and some are amazing while others howl at the moon, with no apparent relationship to the length of the bugle. In fact, my observation is that the Bb 345 is much more likely to have manageable intonation. Broadening the big tuba category to other yorkophones, I've played a bunch of them, and very few in C that were more responsive or that had a cleaner, more colorful, less woofy sound than my Holton. I've played Rudy Meinl 5/4 Bb and C tubas, and did not find that the C was any more responsive than the Bb, or that it produced any cleaner sound. One of the most responsive large tubas I've played was an ancient King 1235--the rotary model from back in the 30's. It beat the stuffing out of the C versions I've been fortunate enough to blow some notes on--instruments that had been owned by Bill Bell.
No fair comparing a Conn 20J to a Meinl-Weston 6450.
Eb is a tougher comparison, because so many of the comparisons are between ancient American Eb basses and modern European F tubas, or between modern Besson compensating Eb tubas and rotary F tubas. The differences in the architecture of the instrument surely overwhelm the extra foot and a half of tubing, it seems to me. The Willson 3400 and 3200 bass tubas don't seem particularly different to me, and both are much more like each other than either is like the 3200R (which is my preference of the three).
I think it's entirely reasonable that if a bass tuba is more responsive and playable than a contrabass tuba, then a C tuba ought to cover part of that distance. But the overall size and shape (as those affect the resonance) of the instrument has such a more significant effect on the responsiveness and playability of the instrument that I'm not sure it's easy to experience that effect, except for maybe comparing a couple of Miraphone 186's.
All the arguments along these lines, and the less defensible arguments concerning which tubas are more suited to what types of music (based on the number of sharps or flats), seem to me post-hoc justifications for what was probably just tuba players doing what a few of the best tuba players in their region did for whatever reason. August Helleberg had a C tuba, and he was the best and most well-paid tuba player in the U.S. at the turn of the last century, and that surely must have influenced others, including Bell, Donatelli, Jacobs, etc., etc., either directly or indirectly. Sometimes, common practice becomes doctrine without any intent on the part of the trendsetters.
I will acknowledge that in the U.S., there is probably a trend in the difference between what Bb tubas and C tubas sound like to audience members, when looking across the whole population of tuba players. But that's because amateurs and school kids are over-represented among Bb tuba players (and with tubas often in questionable condition, and originally purchased at the lower end of the market), and professionals and the professionally-trained are over-represented among C tuba players (that were purchased at the high end of the market and are more likely to be professionally maintained). I would not expect that same trend in, say, Germany.
Rick "thinking this is another cause-and-effect discussion" Denney
