TubeNet

I am not sure that a mouthpiece cup profile is any more suited to an instrument of one pitch than it is to another. A mouthpiece is your PERSONAL interface between you and your particular tuba. Don't clutter your brain with cup profiles, size or back-bore dimensions. Especially, don't read what manufacturers write about the characteristics of the mouthpiece. You will drive yourself CRAZY with that stuff. Go to a reputable dealer with a good selection of mouthpieces and try them. See how they work for you and your tuba without any preconceived notions. Then, select the one that works and sounds best for you and your tuba. I know my theories are not very popular, but they work. I have had much success with my students over the years using this method.

I currently use both a Dr. Young - Reynolds version - which is an ultra deep funnel with no backbore and an ultra large/ultra deep bowl made for me by Zottola in the 80's (and its titanium copy made for me by GW). I use these on a Conn 20J and a Rudy 5/4 BBb. For what it is worth I find the deep funnel to be clearer, more focused and immediate, whereas the large bowl is mellower and sounds "deeper" according to my captive listeners. I prefer the bowl sound and feel to that of the funnel, however both nimbleness and flexibility are a bit easier for me with the funnel.... YMMV.

Get yourself a JK (Joseph Kleir) T1A (bowl) and a Sidey SSH (funnel) and you can do the comparison yourself. The GW Bayamo seems to me to be a hybrid bowl crossed with a funnel and is a good compromise between the 2 extremes.

pauvog1 wrote:I play on the bayamo now, and was just curious how the bowl cups have been working for others as I've never really played o one. Thanks.

The G&W Diablo I had for a while is sold as a funnel shape, but is as pwhitaker describes the Bayamo, an intermediate design. While you may have never really played a bowl cup, you may never have played a funnel either, in terms of a classic funnel like the Conn mouthpieces. With the unique exception of that Dr. Young design, every tuba mouthpiece is a bowl/funnel compromise, but the details of execution vary. The wall near the rim may be sloped or vertical, the bottom may continue to slope or flatten out somewhat, and at the very bottom the transition to the throat may be abrupt or more gradual. No doubt all of these parameters have some effect on performance, along with the throat and backbore.

I think bowl/funnel mouthpiece variance has a lot to do with airstream direction.

1. When you are a downstream player with a high placement, exclusively...- You tend to sound best on a bowl mouthpiece, even more extreme than most. This has to do with the tone color generated by this buzz, and the needed resistance to play lower for most downstream high placement players. This embouchure creates a clear high range, brightish sound, and an easier time moving around in the high range.

2. When you switch embouchure directions in the middle of your range...- You tend to sound best on a funnel mouthpiece. This is so color changes less in the middle of the register right before the airstream direction flips. The point right before the flip the airstream is directed almost entirely towards the shank. This creates an airy, shaky sound. The funnel takes away some of these issues by putting the throat and backbore farther away from the buzz. It also brightens the high range and low range to sound similar to the mid range flip, by forcing the buzz's acoustic properties towards the shank faster.

3. When you are an upstream player exclusively, with a high to mid placement...- You tend to sound best on funnels. This is to darken the sound with this embouchure type. Because the airstream is being directed towards the shank because of the high placement (ideally you play towards the rim to ascend), players use this to darken their range because their placement does not facilitate a darker high range. This embouchure seems to be almost tuba specific. It is done because as beginners we have not fully developed the facial structure and length between lips and septum. It is easier as a young child to play upstream close to the rim, and as we age we still force the rim to right under the nose, even if it is contrary to our embouchure type.

4. When you are an upstream player exclusively, with a low placement....- You tend to sound best on bowls. These reasons are similar to the downstream high placement player, just in reverse. Despite common belief, it is possible to be competent with this placement. Dick Nash (trombone), Clint "Pops" Mcclaughlin (Trumpet), and several professional tubists use this set up.

So what does it all mean?

It means play a bunch of mouthpieces and figure out what you sound best on! Of COURSE, being aware of your embouchure type could help selection, but in the end all that matters is the way you sound.

I just wanted to say thanks to djwesp for this elucidation--totally new to me.

Personally, I've always been more comfortable with funnels, but a teacher recently told me that my embouchure placement and airstream were too "upstream" (to use your term), so I'm back to playing around with placement AND with mouthpieces.

You mention that there are several professional tubists using the upstream-exclusive set up. Who?

On my 186, a deep funnel Wick 1L gave me a huge, warm, broad tone that sometimes lost a little bit of definition in the lowest register, and did feel like I needed a third lung at times. OTOH, a Curry D cup, which he calls a "hybrid," but is a little bit rounded at the bottom, gives almost the same depth and breadth, but with better definition in the lowest register, and I don't need a third lung. Then going the other way, a Kelly 18 is a deep bowl, and even though it is lexan, gives more edge and presence, especially when using my recording bell. As compared to a Bach 18, the standard medium deep bowl we all know, it has the same general overall tonality, but more fundamental since it is deeper.

All else being equal (which is never is, but you have to start a description somewhere) a funnel will truncate some overtones, and a bowl will tend to reinforce overtones, while the fundamental will be influenced by the overall depth, the deeper the cup, the more fundamental. But these will all be modified by the throat and backbore size and geometry, and your own embouchure, as set forth above.

And I play with 1.28 diameter mouthpieces that have a narrow to moderate rim, so I keep my mouthpiece directly centered on my embouchure, and play both bowls and funnels.

bloke wrote:From experience, it's probably best to (somewhat) ignore how a mouthpiece feels and let some trusted friends (spouse, etc.) let you know how it SOUNDS.

Another alternative, if you don't have a trusted musical friend to give feedback, is to use a digital recorder out front to evaluate yourself (but obviously keep note of order tested!). I have found my H2 very useful in giving me both mouthpiece and tuba feedback, at home and in the concert hall.

circusboy wrote:You mention that there are several professional tubists using the upstream-exclusive set up. Who?

There is still a pretty big stigma involving this set up, especially with old timers. In respect to those players, I will not post their names in public forum. We can continue the discussion over PM if you are still inquiring.

I will only list Nash and Pops because they openly acknowledge their upstream embouchures. Some others that do are Dave Wilken, Sal Cracchiolo, Maynard Ferguson (did), Dizzy Gillespie.

Unfortunately, because of "arnold jacobs syndrome", there really isn't that much data about embouchure typing in the professional tuba world. There are some that are extremely obvious and some time with youtube or seeing these guys in person brings it to light (especially if you review Reinhardts typing data on air stream direction and the direction the embouchure slides/pivots to change pitch, along with the prominence in the mouthpiece).

circusboy wrote:Personally, I've always been more comfortable with funnels, but a teacher recently told me that my embouchure placement and airstream were too "upstream" (to use your term), so I'm back to playing around with placement AND with mouthpieces.

Too upstream compared to what?

No two people's lips, facial, and dental structures are identical, so the "best" or "ideal" placement for one person won't necessarily work for another. Left to their own devices, (i.e., there's no teacher screwing around with their embouchure), people tend to gravitate toward the placement and airstream that is most efficient FOR THEM.
So be wary of tinkering around with your embouchure just because your teacher says your embouchure is "too upstream."

Go over to tromboneforum.org and read this thread on embouchure woes for some perspective. Pay particular attention to Doug Elliott's posts.

pgym wrote: Go over to tromboneforum.org and read this thread on embouchure woes for some perspective. Pay particular attention to Doug Elliott's posts.

Ding! Great advice pgym. Doug is top notch.