TubeNet

There's a lot of "it depends" involved. My personal take would be four players in a group that size. With either very strong, or very weak players, five might be just fine, however(read: strong = good, weak = not so good).

My summer band had 6, but only a handful of times did everyone actually show up for everything. 5 is a lot, but could be fine. Precision and section intonation become more difficult then. More than that and it starts to feel like a marching band tuba section...

I always heard that there should be one tuba for every 12 players in the group. That seem to parallel the ratio of double bases to the rest of the orchestra in most major symphony orchestras. So based on that theory a 70 piece band you would need six tuba players. If one or two of you are playing Ebs you would balance the section out nicely I would think you could substitute a double bass for one of the six as well.

Of the two concert bands I play there are 2 tubas for band of 50 and in the other one only me for band of 45 (I need the Neptune!).

However if one looks as Sousa's band as the one to emulate, according to the book "The Incredible Band of John Philip Sousa" by Paul Bierley (which is a book I would recommend reading) from 1922 to 1931 he had a band totalling between 51 and 76 musicians with tuba/sousaphone section varying between 3 and 6 - and remember some of those would have been Jumbo size raincatcher sousaphones.

Last year, I had 6 tubas in a 60 piece band. The cool thing about this was, they could play up to a forte, or forte plus, and still keep a big dark bassy sound. I LOVE that. In my brass band, I carry SIX!

Just as long as there is more than 1. I was in an honor band in high school that had 8 and we sounded fine.

A traditional British brass band used four tubas in a 25 - 27 piece group.

We often have four or five in my community band. Ya just gotta remember to be pp when you are supposed to and pay attention to articulation.

Two tubas can sound bad, too!

I am in a group of about 65. We have 5 total- but 2 are E flats! It really is a nice sound, but enough bottom when we need it!

IIRC, Sousa's idea was there should be 1 bass instrument for every 11 other instruments. It may have been 10, but I sure want to say 11.

Some also depends on the player/horn. Last night I was balancing out a 55 piece group by myself using my monster Conn 25J. I don't think I could have done that with my old miraphone.

Jim

bloke wrote:

UNMTUBADUDE wrote:Just as long as there is more than 1. I was in an honor band in high school that had 8 and we sounded fine.

I will comment that at one time during my ancient educational experiences that (for reasons I will not go into here) there were only two of us in a fairly large band ("symphonic wind ensemble") and one had to drop out of school early in the semester - leaving only moi. It was really a "kick" to supply all of the tuba sound for that band by myself. It was more like playing in an orchestra, except that I played 97% of the time, rather than resting 97% of the time.

I'm in agreement with the 1, or possibly 2 in a 60 piece ensemble. A typical 60 piece ensemble doesn't out out that much sound, and 1 player can certainly balance. In my case, I find it allows more musical "freedom", a better blend with the trombones/horns/euph, and it's quite rewarding to be the bottom of an entire ensemble. I see merit in larger bands (notice... I specify bands) for multiple tubas. Often, the parts are written for multiple players, to facilitate sustain, and at times, for volume. However, I personally enjoy being the single tubist in my ensemble. I do have a section mate who is away for 4 months, and we play very well together. If there was 1 more, I'd be unhappy.

In every case, it depends on the players, and it depends on the band. Most amateur bands play too loudly, and a big tuba section making the same mistake only ratchets up this death spiral. Also, it is not easy to find five or six community-band tuba players who can play in tune with each other, let alone put a solid pitch out there for the band to tune to.

A professional band could have six or 12 tuba players and still sound appropriate. The question is this: How many tuba players are needed to achieve a particular sound concept? Tony addressed that--more players can make a big sound without pushing their tone into the "loud" region. That will better emulate string basses when playing transcriptions. But it requires six players who have that level of control (both in terms of skills and in terms of psyche).

And the psyche is the big part. A large section can survive with weak players if they understand and follow the principle of doing no harm. One out-of-tune or overly aggressive player in the section can overwhelm whatever musicianship is being exercised by the others in the section. But if that player has taste and knows how to stay within their abilities, they will avoid that mistake.

Many tuba players like to show off how loudly they can play. It's the reward for the work of haulage. It takes particular musical discipline to overcome that urge, and in many cases that discipline is not enforced. Enforcing it, though, requires enforcing the control exercised in the rest of the band.

In many cases, though, bands accommodate whoever shows up as part of their basic structure. In those cases, the question isn't in how many, but in what those players do to accommodate the numbers who do show up. Often, the best players end up shouldering the load, and find themselves compelled to lay out altogether because the lesser players won't back off, and that lowers the quality of the whole group. I suspect that sort of thing keeps really good players out of community bands more than anything else.

Rick "thinking most tuba players believe that 'p' means 'pound it out there'" Denney

bloke wrote:It was really a "kick" to supply all of the tuba sound for that band by myself. It was more like playing in an orchestra, except that I played 97% of the time, rather than resting 97% of the time.

I feel exactly the same playing as the only tuba. I usually enjoy orchestra more than band, but in that situation as long as the repertoire is good (which it is with the Beenham Band), I actually enjoy more.

Jonathan "whose band is playing at BASBWE, Royal Northern College of Music in October for any UK TubeNetters who want to hear a Neptune providing bass alone for Symphonic Wind Band"

Beginning by realizing that 2 tubas are not twice as loud as one is a good place to start... Each additional tuba at the same volume is only about 10% louder. So in reality, you're going to make this decision principally on timbre, and on who the players are.

I play in a 46-piece group under a damn good conductor. We have 4 tubists - 3 contrabass, one bass (me). It makes a great spectrum of sound adding a bass tuba, allowing the others to play on 6/4 horns, as the overtones are pushed up by the lighter bass. However, we all can play quieter than a mouse fart or can level the hall, and we work very hard to set the forces and timbre appropriately to the music. We may come down to two horns, either two contras or bass and contra, or on contra or one bass. We're careful.

The other pro group I often play with usually has 3 tubas. At times - as we're in an open air venue (and one cat is usually on an anemic F) - I sometimes want a little more core, but it's never "too little".

YMMV. The 4-5 advice seems solid to me, and Sousa had pretty good success I hear

J.c.S.

Rick Denney wrote: amateur bands
death spiral

Having been in many of the former, I feel silly for never thinking to use latter to describe a seemingly-ubiquitous sonic phenomenon. Many thanks!

Two. Here's a clip of a wind ensemble at California State University-Long Beach.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CsulbMusic# ... MUIq5m8Jm0" target="_blank

However, if the band is really big, say 60+, it may take more than two tubas to carry the bottom.

More players can allow a section to play with less individual volume and more control if the players are smart enough to back down. Not having to open up excessively in loud sections improves the sound tremendously.

Many of us were influenced by band directors who couldn't get enough tuba sound and encouraged us to overblow terribly. It has taken ages for me to properly appreciate the improvement in sound of a section that can provide enough bass without forcing. Tone, control, intonation, blend, and interpretation should be the goals, not sheer volume.

I think it is a matter of concept. In an orchestra I think the tuba should have a lot of projection. Afterall, we have to poke a hole in 80-120 players. We need to make a lot of large, focused sound. So we DO tend to play in the F-FF range frequently. As a conductor of a band (wind ensemble) the tubas inherit the function of the bass section, so there needs to be a lof of bass sound that is lost (I believe) in the higher dynamic levels. In a 50 piece band, I'd rather have 3 guys playing UP TO forte, rather than having 2 guys playing in the forte to double forte range. This is even MORE crucial when the players don't have the requesite skills to play louder without pushing their sound into the higher frequency range. Also, I want my tuba guys to be playing the largest horns they can lay their hands on. In one of my groups, the SMALLEST tuba is an HB-2P. We have a Gronitz PCK and a Mirafone 191 BBb. In my community band, we have an Alex 173, a Mirafone 186 CC, A PT-6P, Yamaha Rotary BBb (Alexander copy) and a large Kanstul BBb. I love the 'blended' sound of all these different colors. It's rather like making a Long Island iced tea. The other 'trick' I use is that we never play the upper notes in a split part; EVERYBODY plays the low notes. But this can be left for another discussion.

tclements wrote:Also, I want my tuba guys to be playing the largest horns they can lay their hands on.

To my ears, that more produces the sound. The concert bands here in the UK with just Eb's (unfortunately the majority) sound distinctly weak at the bottom end.

tclements wrote:The other 'trick' I use is that we never play the upper notes in a split part; EVERYBODY plays the low notes. But this can be left for another discussion.

Tony, you are not going to get away with that - tell us more! What is your reasoning?

Indeed - we have one tuba only (bass) on top divisi at all times. Our argument is two-fold: the composer wrote it and the conductor wants it that way. Besides pieces by Granger and Williams and others where the divisi are two different parts, it can add so much to the timbre and power of the section. 3+1 divisi can bowl over 4 at lower only.

J.c.S.