TubeNet

Every time I have seen this work performed, I hear guys bring out the big guns. In reviewing the part (the BrklynSO is having summer conductors reading sessions), the work is distinctly marked for bass tuba. (2,5 & 6 are marked Tuba for comparison) Range-wise, I understand - the part was virtually made for F tuba, Bb would be my second choice IF NOT for the fact that I clearly hear contrabass in my head. (as I don't own a Bb, I can't choose this option) This will be my first time performing this work with full orchestra, and I've never thought about which gun to bring (nor have I had the great selection in the past that I do now). It works very well for my 163 (and sounds the best when I compared recordings with the 164 read clarity), but I usually see guys bringing their 6/4's for this.

Have you played this before with orchestra? What horn did ya use?

Hey Ben,
This was our season closer a couple of years ago in the Springfield Symphony and I took my Yamaha YCB-661, instead of my 6/4. My thinking was that it would be closer to the large bore, small belled BBb horns that were around Russia at that time (I'm open to being corrected on this, if anyone has better info!). The orchestra and audience members that noticed seemed to think that the sound was the right choice. Long story short, I think the 163 would be a great way to go. . .

--T. J.

Hi!
My first paid Tuba gig!
I think it was '84, as a sub w/ the Yakima, Wa. Symphony. All I had was a YBB641 issued by Central Wa. University. I nailed the whole gig! Nadja Sonnenberg was The guest artist on Violin...She had a broken leg in a cast! What a beautiful, talented player!

Al

I posted mostly as a curiosity. I like the core of the 163, and it has a more flexible sound (for me as a player) than the 164. (164 worked fabulous for tchaik2). The more muscular 163 works great for tchaik6 too.

I am mostly mystified by the bass tuba notation. I wonder if that is a copyist mistake. No doubt an F could pull it off, but where is the fun in that!

Joe- I haven't checked out those videos yet, I wonder how the compare to the SF-MTT ones (quite tasty recording!)

Thanks for the comments everyone. I am curious to see what others have chosen for this.

Ben,

I used my 163 on this tune last October. It is, by far, my favorite horn to use in orchestras, Tchaik 4 being no exception. I think the 155 (you have a 155, right?) would blend too much with the bass bone, essentially canceling you out.

Enjoy!

I performed this work several years ago with an orchestra and used my 5/4 rotary CC. 'Pretty much played a lot of it "balls to the walls" (LOUD) too.
Wasn't the big Kaiser tuba in great use during Tchaikovsky's time? Either way, large contrabass tuba all the way

Ben wrote:I posted mostly as a curiosity. I like the core of the 163, and it has a more flexible sound (for me as a player) than the 164. (164 worked fabulous for tchaik2). The more muscular 163 works great for tchaik6 too.

How is the Alex 163 more "muscular" than the larger Alex 164?? I'd think the opposite...

Leaner sound?

Clifford Bevin in "The Tuba Family" suggests that at that time Eb was found in Russian Symphony Orchestras, so maybe that is what is meant by the 'Bass tuba' notation?

However he also says Bobo suggests using "a large CC for the fourth".

I have in the past played Tchaikovsky 4 on Besson 981 EEb and that seemed to work fine, although expect I would pull out my Neptune if playing again. It a lot depends on your sound concept, the acoustics of the hall and size of orchestra.

Tooba: muscular = leaner/muscular... More core /fundamental in the EQ mix. Surprisingly the 164 has a more pillow-y broad sound. It is less direct than the 163. The 163 feels louder, it's just more compact. The 164 better mimics a string bass than the 163. (the 163 is THE tuba sound in my head) I guess I will have to get around to posting my test recordings at some point.

Jonathan: yes I have a 155. It's not even a consideration, I agree the Btb may steal the show if I bring that.

I've played this twice, both times on my 4/4 CC. In both instances the clarity from a smaller bore horn helped blend in the unison sections but was big enough to provide enough foundation (along w/ the double basses) to fill out the lower end. I agree that a 6/4 might be a little too "fluffy" for certain sections and that an F wouldn't properly fill out the low end. I think a 4/4 or 5/4 CC would be the right combination of core/clarity and breadth of sound; the 5/4 would probably give you a little more dynamic range.

Just my .02

-CT

Ben wrote:Tooba: muscular = leaner/muscular... More core /fundamental in the EQ mix. Surprisingly the 164 has a more pillow-y broad sound. It is less direct than the 163. The 163 feels louder, it's just more compact. The 164 better mimics a string bass than the 163. (the 163 is THE tuba sound in my head) I guess I will have to get around to posting my test recordings at some point.

Got it! I'd like to hear that Alex 164 My CC tuba (M-W 5/4 rotary) is probably somewhat similar to the Alex 164. Sound is very dense & centered (but BIG) with a little "pillow". So I could see why you'd say that. But even the big 5/4 Rudy CC is more direct/compact w/more 'growl' in sound than the piston 5/4 and 6/4 tubas.

Don't get me wrong.....I sometimes dig the piston BAT sound. But I keep coming back to the rotary "Kaiser" tuba sound for orchestral listening and playing.
The big piston BAT sound is just too diffuse/fluffy sounding sometimes, especially with today's general super-round sound concept

Tuba history in Russia:

http://www.tuba.org.ru/english.htm" target="_blank

tooba wrote:But I keep coming back to the rotary "Kaiser" tuba sound for orchestral listening and playing.
The big piston BAT sound is just too diffuse/fluffy sounding sometimes, especially with today's general super-round sound concept

Ditto. I keep telling this story, but seeing the Berlin Philharmonic with Alexander von Puttkamer with his MW Kaiser BBb, it was just awesome.

I saw Tchaik 4 performed once, though I don't remember where. I think the tubist used a PT-6, and the dude was a real hoss of a player. He sounded great, though definitely an American orchestra sound all around.

bort wrote: Ditto. I keep telling this story, but seeing the Berlin Philharmonic with Alexander von Puttkamer with his MW Kaiser BBb, it was just awesome.

I saw Tchaik 4 performed once, though I don't remember where. I think the tubist used a PT-6, and the dude was a real hoss of a player. He sounded great, though definitely an American orchestra sound all around.

Alexander is one of my fav players. He sounds amazing on his M-W 197 BBb
I find the PT-6 tubas to kinda have a hybrid American/German tuba sound, with the PT-6P leaning more "American 'York tuba'" in sound.

I guess this is slightly off topic but related...

tooba: can't promise a link until this weekend. The sample recordings are at my studio, and I won't be able to make the AB comparison tape until then.

tooba wrote:My CC tuba (M-W 5/4 rotary) is probably somewhat similar to the Alex 164

Did you mean to say 163? the 164 is truly a 6/4 BART - 0.846" bore. 163's (5/4) while mine has the 16.75" bell, still has 0.810" bore

Don't get me wrong, the 164 doesn't sound like a 345, it is much more direct than that... But there is a definite girth to the sound.

mp3 link to ensue... words are failing me!

Ben wrote: Did you mean to say 163? the 164 is truly a 6/4 BART - 0.846" bore. 163's (5/4) while mine has the 16.75" bell, still has 0.810" bore

Don't get me wrong, the 164 doesn't sound like a 345, it is much more direct than that... But there is a definite girth to the sound.

mp3 link to ensue... words are failing me!

Ben,

My M-W 5/4 CC (2155R) is probably between your Alex 163 and Alex 164 in physical size and sound. It has a 17.75" bell with a fat throat, is pretty tall and I THINK has a .807" bore. Bought the horn used about 11 years ago. I'd have to dig out some of the old WW&BW magazines to find it's listing and specs.
I have played several old Alex 163 CCs and one BBb and I'd call them large 4/4s. My horn is definitely bigger than the Alex 163, and with a touch more "pillow" to the sound. That's why I think it is probably similar to your Alex 164.

I think either Alex would work perfect on Tchaik 4

bloke wrote:I believe the tuba part to this symphony will sound really great on a tuba if you play it well on a tuba.

Probably true - will work on anything from large F to 6/4 CC if played well. We often get far too focused on equipment to use, while everyone else (other than tuba players) just wants a good sounding in tune, in time tuba. So best to just play on whatever instrument you feel you can do the most competent job, regardless of historical 'correctness', whatever that may be.

Yup, thanks bloke

I still have some work to do this weekend on cleaning a few things up. As I mentioned before, I had already chosen which instrument I was going to use after I made a few recordings about a week ago. I'll share those warts and all for sound reference comparison for tooba. Not many people get to hear an A-B comparison of these horns with the same player. Of course I am certain there are better players out there.

I've heard Ron Bishop do this one on both a 163 and a Rudy 3/4. Both sounded great. Bevan's notes are right on, and Russian composers weren't generally on top of "the change" to BBb... it happened and the terminology changed later. Tchaikovsky's writing is the most flexible tuba writing out there: ANYTHING works as long as it's conical!

I'd 163 it. You can get a touch of edge out of the 163 which will attack well. The 164 will be billowy... nice, and just as interesting as an F or Eb (which I've done it on and it works fine), but the 163 is - voicing wise and dynamic wise - the best choice for this IMHO.

J.c.S. (who would probably whip out a BBb ; )

bloke wrote:Has anyone watched the videos?

But of course Good stuff! He has the horns enter like Maazel!

Another note on this piece - basically you're doubled with the bass bone - you're not even (gasp ) necessary as a point of fact, so a bass tuba would work, especially with some of the higher voicing in the last movement. The big horn is in fact (to me) a little disruptive... but it's not half as bad as "Great Gate of Kiev".

J.c.S.

bloke wrote:Has anyone watched the videos?

yup. Gene sounds great, did you have something specific you wanted to point out? I would like to hear Gene play this on a 186/8, I think I would like that even more.

(a youtube of Rex Martin playing a Rudy under Solti too...)