TubeNet

Hi Everyone,
I am a proffessional tuba player in the UK and just wanted to re hash this old debate. I have played Besson EEb since the age of 11. I have played EVERYTHING on this horn, from Bruckner , Mahler etc to Berlioz. I have used it in chamber orchestra, full symphony and as a soloist and quintet player. In the UK this is normal. And we are talking pro situations here. In 2000 I bought a new horn. After much research and trials I bought a MW 2000. It seemed to be the best and most useable instrument for what I needed. Followed closely by the the PT 6P. My plan was to use the CC for bigger stuff and use my EEb for everything else. This seems to be the way things are now going in the UK. Every Orchestral player seems to now have a CC. Ever since playing CC people have made positive comments about the sound etc. Nice!! But when I switch to EEb it seems to be the same old sound. I now have a Miraphone Petrushka F. I have only used it once in a hall and with a section but it seemed to go down very well. I love playing it and I adore the sound. I think I have a sound in my head that is CC sometimes and F sometimes, and as a brit I have been trying to bend my EEb into these shapes.(does that make sense?) The question is. Do you go for it and try and break the tradition, or do you stick to the old EEb tradition? Who knows.For what its worth, the Petrushka F is STUNNING!!!!!!!

He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. In the end, the one(s) out front are responsible for you getting paid so, you use what makes the listener (likely, read conductor) happy. Of course a big part of producing the product which is appreciated by those in front is to a great extent dependent on you being happy with the equipment you are using. There is always the factor of "blend"with the section to consider too.

It looks like you have a nice arsenal of equipment and can choose what suits best for any given situation.

As for tradition...well, there are those who won't change and those who change purely for the sake of changing; then there are those who make a considered decision.

It's always nice to have options available.

Now, hows that for a definitive answer? I doubt there is one.

One of the best Mahler 2's I have ever witnessed was with the CBSO/Rattle. Player played it on EEb. It sounded stupendous. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Chuck"already lamenting yet another country that has given their National Sound the heave-ho in favor of what? NOTHING"Jackson

I know both Pat Harrild and Lee Tsarmaklis have a little F (MW 182) for the small stuff, their EEb for the "middle" stuff and a large CC (2165 and Yamayork respectively) for the larger stuff.

Lee said that one of the reasons that the EEb is used so much is the difficulty of lugging more than 1 horn around London. Since you can use it for "most" things, it makes sense to put that one in the car.

Cheers,

Cam

Having been through the same process myself, I fully understand your feelings. When one plays a good CC and F, then EEb can seem sort of compromise - tonally not as colourful as either of the others.

However, only you can decide if to make the leap, but an EEb is a very useful adaptable tuba. I would suggest before you sell put it in its case for 3 months and see if you miss.

For me the decision to give up the Besson 981 was mainly due to a shoulder problem making the top valves uncomfortable to use. I would probably have kept otherwise, but as things have turned out do not miss - but do frequently now take two tubas to a gig.

If you do decide to go the CC/F route, then maybe look at trading for a good 6/4 CC? You would not regret - there is nothing like that breath of tone.

For loss of National traditions mentioned by Chuck - up to John Fletcher, F was the British orchestral tuba anyway. EEb of the 3+1 type are very much a brass band tradition, and that will no doubt never change!

Best Regards,
Jonathan

It seems to me that the logical addition to an established EEb is a nice, big BBb.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that I would never play EEb again or that there is anything wrong with it. I do find it very hard work for the big stuff though and now that i have a CC and have used it in many large works, it seems to fit better with the general make up of certain compositions. Likewise an F. It does seem to make more sense tonally in certain situations.
I also think that there is a very big difference between the older Bessons and the new ones. The new ones seem to be alot lighter? The old round stamp Bessons seem to be heavier and thicker.
To the couple of more critical posts, I dont think there is anything wrong with trying to improve in ones tone, balance, intonation etc. If this means trying new equipment then surely there is nothing wrong with that. Just because something isnt broken dosent mean you cant improve.
As a freelancer in Britain selling my EEb would be like professional suicide. But if I had a full time post I can imagine my approach would be similar to Pat and Lee etc. Almost there. Trying some other CC stuff soon Jonathan!
If you have a big CC a great EEb and an F you have everything covered. And if you can only get one instrument to the gig then the EEb is still a great tool.

tuben wrote:I used to win bets in college by being able to identify not only country of origin, but often the actual orchestra as well based on recordings and the differences in orchestral brass color. (London vs Vienna vs Paris vs NYP vs Philadelphia vs Boston, etc)

It's a shame that is no longer the case.

Word.

The only orchestra that has not lost their distinctive sound is the VPO. The combination of the Vienna Horns and Oboes is a sound that, to my ears, makes the music written in that city between 1750-1930 incredibly exciting. Case in point: Previn's recordings of the Strauss catalouge has surplanted ANY recordings made from without Vienna. Yes, I know Strauss was a German, but his music is permanently linked to VPO, at least in my mind, by his long-standing relationship with that city and its orchestra.

Chuck"loves historic recordings of a nations music performed by a representative orchestra of that nation much more than the bland, OVERWROUGHT recordings of the same music by a seemingly more and more homogenous orchestral world"Jackson

I apologize with the OP for dragging this discussion away from instruments and into the realm of conjecture. It is fun though. CHEERS!!!

Hey Craig! - how's things?
Don't sell that Besson EEb! - esp' if it's a good one.
Personally I have never played an F (and I've played many) which felt more comfortable or more responsive than my EEb in the high register - and if I needed a lighter sound I've always been able to modify the timbre using my own physical mechanics.
I just think there is less hassle with the EEb - it's an instrument that is easily manipulated.
If you've got one of the good Bessons you've got it made - and my custom LMI EEb is a real gem.
(BTW Fletch told me the main reason he started using the Holton was because conductors from overseas wanted to see a tuba that looked loud!).

Steve

Ha! Brilliant Steve. Thats probably true. Im very well. Hope your good. Dont want to dis the besson at all but the one I have isnt amazing. I agree with you though. Playing F is challenging when you have been brought up on EEb. The new petrushka I have from Miraphone is stunning. I wont be selling anything but I have to say I am enjoying this new sound. I have played a couple of brilliant EEb tubas and when they are good they are amazing. Just havent played a great one for a while. I actually think having a great F , a great EEb and a great CC or BBb would be every orchestral players perfect set up. After all trumpet, trombone and horn players have been doing it for years.
Iv not been on this site for long. I should not really post after 2 bottles of wine on a Friday night Lesson learned.
Stay in touch big fella.

craig2000 wrote:I actually think having a great F , a great EEb and a great CC or BBb would be every orchestral players perfect set up.

I used to think the more tubas the better, and at one time had 7 in all 4 keys - but from my experience have rather changed my mind. It is a lot of fun having a selection to use, but each type of tuba, particularly in different keys has different characteristics which to play at their best one must become really familiar so the tuba is an extension of the player. That becomes increasingly difficult, the greater selection is used - so the extra choice can be counter productive in music performance. That is one reason why I decides to give up on Eb. I was mostly playing F and was not using the Eb sufficient to play without too much thought.

Just another consideration - more may not always be better!

The British concept of playing everything on EEb is nice but I agree you really would be better served by having different instruments for different things. I personally have moved from yamaha F tuba which plays big like a small CC tuba much like the British EEb's to a Norwegian Star EEb for my bass tuba work. I think the ideal set up and my eventual goal is to own my 6/4 CC, add a 4/4 CC, a 6/4-5/4 BBb, a british style EEb, a Petroushka or Yamaha 822 F, my Norwegian star, a contrabass trombone and a couple cimbassos maybe a CC Rudy Meinl or G&P and a G&P or Haag F, and a compensating Euphonium like Besson or WIllson or an equivalent, and either a Alexander or Miraphone Rotor valve euph/kaiser baritone with 5 valves tuning trigger and upright bell and a Yamaha bass trombone. That plus a slew of mouthpieces to achieve different timbres I need for the various styles and periods that need to be emphasized through my playing.

Sorry to get off topic but like the British EEb can you use a BBb in America for basically everything you would use a CC for and just have a BBb and a EEb/F?

True Jonathan!! Thats probably one of the reasons why I posted in the first place. Im a little confused in how to stop now that iv started if you know what I mean. As soon as you start using other things it is inevitable that you have to try many different instruments and ideally in many different situations and with many different sections. There is no point in you loving a sound if the people you work with,( and more importantly are responsible for hiring you) dont like it.I really want to settle on whatever it may be and go back to work. I find myself listening constantly to the instruments im playing these days rather than listening to myself in the practice room. I think messing around with mouthpieces can also have this effect. You constantly play to try and find that perfect combination of instrument and mouthpiece, but actually you should really just be working harder?
After my trip to the Miraphone factory in July I intend to put this one to bed and get on with it.
And ztuba, thats quite an array of instruments. Good luck with practising all of them. I dont have the time to cope with 3.
Cheers

I am a real fan of the Besson Eb 98X models however, I have had run-in's with conductors who were not. One approached me after a concert and told me "never bring that horn in here again." I played with that conductor for another year after that, so I don't believe it was me. He didn't like the horn.

Why? I've asked myself. One church choir director complained about the bell pointing the "wrong way." I can understand that his seating arrangement was designed for a left-bell tuba and that's what he wanted.

In talking about the 'anti-Eb bias' in this country, a colleague told me he was about to audition for an orchestra. When he was walking into the audition, the monitor said something like, "I suppose you know this isn't a band, you really couldn't use that tuba in the orchestra."

I have long believed that a front action Eb tuba would be indistinguishable to the critics from an F tuba in most orchestra situations and was delighted to see so many front-action piston Eb's appear, starting in the late 80's(?). Heck, I was glad to finally see front-action piston CC's become popular, I didn't think I would live that long. It would be a rare musician indeed who could discern the sound of a Norwegian Star from most rotary valve F's.

So, in the proper configuration, I would be happy to play an Eb tuba in this country. I agree with the OP that it is a fine all-round instrument but, as he is hearing, in the US tubists do not play everything on one tuba. They are expected to have an 'appropriate' instrument for the music and the occasion. So Mahler gets a big tuba (mostly) and Verdi gets a cimbasso.

I have been using a Boosey & Hawkes Eb with the big 20" (edit 19") bell for about 25 years, (fyi, I am not an orchestral player, so i do not have the experience of needing different tubas for the different lit. I play mostly brass quintet and some band work) but since I started playing Eb in a brass band I would like to find an old Boosey or Besson with the smaller bell to help get a more articulate sound. I have also started using a shallower cup (Sellmansberger Solo) to give the tone a bit more edge or color, since these horns tend to be mono-chromatic. I also just bought a bigger BBb which I have been playing around with and plan to use on certain gigs. In the small pops orchestra I play in I use my Boosey and the bell does go the "wrong" way but actually I think the sound goes out over the orchestra better, otherwise it would be going into the wings in most situations.

ken k

One of our third's in the Tuba Ensemble showed up with a nice top valve, bell front Besson to rehearsal last week as opposed to his regular tuba (no clue what kind of Eb that one is) and I could hear the 3rds better than at any other rehearsal. Nice horn!

Ally"still at the stage where all tubas are cool"House

I'm curious as to which horn or horns would be the all round British EEb. I know the old ones had a 15 inch bell and the Fletcher horns had a 19 inch bell. I've heard that some of the early 19 inch bell horns [1978 to 1982??] should be avoided because of intonation problems. Now Ken talks about his B&H with a 20 inch bell and I've not yet heard of these. What years were they made?

Anyone care to make a stab at a summary of the pros and cons of these various models?

royjohn

royjohn wrote:I'm curious as to which horn or horns would be the all round British EEb. I know the old ones had a 15 inch bell and the Fletcher horns had a 19 inch bell. I've heard that some of the early 19 inch bell horns [1978 to 1982??] should be avoided because of intonation problems. Now Ken talks about his B&H with a 20 inch bell and I've not yet heard of these. What years were they made?

Anyone care to make a stab at a summary of the pros and cons of these various models?

royjohn

Sorry, my mistake, it is a 19" bell. I just measured it. My horn is from the 70's I believe. The intonation on mine is very good, however I did play a Besson at Dillons once upon a time that was not very good. Mine was originally like a 982 with the smaller leadpipe, but I have since installed a 981 leadpipe.

ken k

The problem with the transitional models from 1978 through 1982 is the combination of the wide bell and the old narrow (bassbone size) receiver. In my opinion these instruments may sound hard when pushed.

According to Denis Wick in 1973, the team behind the development of the first generation of Sovereign models worked towards a square version of the compensating tubas (one loop more - American style). And they had the efficient wide Fletcher leadpipe ready for the Eb version, whereas they hadn’t yet succeeded with an equivalent for the BBb version.

Klaus