TubeNet

I have just been playing off a very old part of Tchaikovsky Nutcracker Suite with orchestra and was interesting to see the Hawkes & Son advert on the back for the Hawkes Orchestral Tuba in C with 3 (£18 18s), or 4 valves (£23 2s).

We tend to think of using C in UK orchestras as something recent, but it sounds like they were being promoted about 100 years ago. Anyone ever seen such a tuba?

Also advertised was as you would expect a 4 valve Orchestral F tuba for £14 14s, but also a 5 valve "Special Orchestral Model" Euphonium in C for £14 14s, or £23 "Tripple Silver Plated"!

Interesting stuff!

Fascinating. I love historical stuff like that. Any way you could post pics of those advertisements? It would be interesting to somehow interpret those old price schedules into modern prices.

Sorry guys, cannot scan the advert. I was simply deputizing with an orchestra in London and spotted the advert in a break in playing. I only had the music (which was from a private collection) for the afternoon rehearsal and concert, so it never came home to be scanned.

What I did not mention is that from the description it was clear that the 5 valve Euphonium in C had 3+2 top valve set up. That instrument was the star billing, as if a new model at the time.

There were no illustrations unfortunately.

What amazed me was the advertising of an Orchestral C tuba "pitched an octave below the euphonium" in the UK pre-1930 (was that when Hawkes merged with Boosey?)

The advert also listed hard cases for one pound and few shillings!

Edinburgh University has what they claim is an 1885 Boosey compensating CC in its collection-

http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/ucj/ucjth10.html" target="_blank" target="_blank




What do you guys think? To my eye it looks a lot like an Eb lengthened to CC (check out the jogged main slide and the wicked curve on the 3rd slide), but then again my eyes have deceived me in the past.

It certainly looks more like a lengthened Eb, rather than shortened BBb. Thanks for posting!

Of course that is a Boosey, so the Hawkes (they were different companies then) may be quite different.

Not seen the tuba ad in C but the Euphonium ones are common on the back of old selections, I also have them listing Euphoniums in A too.

The C models were variants on the B flat standard ones;

http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k309/ ... kes28a.jpg" target="_blank
CB

Neptune wrote:It certainly looks more like a lengthened Eb, rather than shortened BBb. Thanks for posting!

Of course that is a Boosey, so the Hawkes (they were different companies then) may be quite different.

I agree that this one looks like based on the Eb model. I cannot quite follow the airpath all the way round visually, but the main frame looks quite filled up with tubing. Maybe that is the reason why there only are three valves.

And then I still wonder about who would want to buy and use this tuba? The range of useable notes downwards is the same as on the 3+1 Eb comper (down to Gb/F#). And then the Eb 3+1 has the option of playing F and E natural in tune with some slide pulling, where this CC is missing F through C#.

The Hawkes CC would be different anyway unless they licenced the Blaikley principle from Boosey, who was the original owner of that patent.

Klaus

Klaus, I'm not sure that 100 years ago that anybody really thought about the lowest near-pedal range for a contrabass tuba, and mostly wrote only down to concert pitch 4-ledger line below the bass clef (two ledger lines and a space G for transposed treble clef brass band convention notation) anyway for a BBb tuba, and probably about the same for a CC, even though by that time 4-valves was becoming, if not already, the norm for Eb tuba.

What puzzles me is that they sold these C as Orchestral tubas, but even back in the 19th century there was orchestral tuba parts which go lower than can be reached on a 3-valve C.

Four valves I would consider the minimum for it to be considered an orchestral C tuba.

I think Chuck G has/had a 3 valve comp C, but I don't remember if he ever put a picture of it up.

Today played with orchestra Coleridge-Taylor BamBoula published 1912 which had similar advert on tuba part. I think these are fascinating!

Took photo of the advert with my iPhone

Neptune wrote:What puzzles me is that they sold these C as Orchestral tubas, but even back in the 19th century there was orchestral tuba parts which go lower than can be reached on a 3-valve C.

Such as? Seriously, I'm trying to come up examples, and really can't--aside from things that probably had a BBb in mind, like The Ride. So, the question possibly should be what is unreachable on a 3 valve BBb, from pre-1900, let's say?

eupher61 wrote:

Neptune wrote:What puzzles me is that they sold these C as Orchestral tubas, but even back in the 19th century there was orchestral tuba parts which go lower than can be reached on a 3-valve C.

Such as? Seriously, I'm trying to come up examples, and really can't--aside from things that probably had a BBb in mind, like The Ride. So, the question possibly should be what is unreachable on a 3 valve BBb, from pre-1900, let's say?

We are talking 3-valve CC (as advertised), not BBb - what about work which was well established in the repertoire late 19th century, Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5 ? Try playing that on 3 valve CC!

There are a number a works that go lower than the Gb (the practical limit of a 3 valve CC) if you look.

Bob Kolada wrote:I think Chuck G has/had a 3 valve comp C, but I don't remember if he ever put a picture of it up.

Yes he does and I think he would sell it to anyone interested. Kinda fun to play, but there were ZERO false tones on that thing. So there was no way to play a low F on it. He had talked about getting a 3+1 BBb comp section, shortening it to CC, and putting it on the horn. I don't think he ever did though.

bububassboner wrote:Kinda fun to play, but there were ZERO false tones on that thing. So there was no way to play a low F on it. He had talked about getting a 3+1 BBb comp section, shortening it to CC, and putting it on the horn. I don't think he ever did though.

That was my experience with my BBb 3-valve comp as well. Something about running the tubing back through the block must get in the way of the nodes/antinodes.