TubeNet

Since arriving at this place, I've read a lot on how different different (kinds of) tubas are, but as I haven't played that many different tubas yet, my personal experience in that area is quite small. (I've only played a bunch of Eb tubas, and two BBb ones. None of them a professional model.)

So I'd be interested to hear more about what the differences are. In one recent post, someone described an Eb-tuba as being almost like an F in character, so I assume there's more to it than being tuned one tone apart from each other. What are the usual characteristics of each kind of tuba?

And while we're on the subject, what's the difference between rotors and pump valves? (The only rotor instruments I've played are french horns, but what I've read have given me the impression that the difference is bigger than you'd think.) And how about different sizes of the same kind of tuba?

Pretty good question. But... I can't wait to see the 'entertaining' answers!

FWIW, the only thing that can be considered a constant between all tuba in one keys is the fundamental pitch. In other words, all BBb tubas have BBb as their fundamental (open) pitch. Most of the fingerings are usually the same for horns in one key, however there might be some deviations to account or tuning intricacies. The overview that Kiltie provided is a very general overview, certain people could raise issues with the points he makes. Indeed, I have owned some weird horns, including a tiny BBb that was smaller than most F tuba out there on the market today. (A besson 2-20, 13" bell - 33" tall) . I would not generalize and say the the timbre of all BBb is even remotely the same. The same things applies to all other horns.

Here are some thoughts:

British brass bands use BBb and EEb tubas.
Most middle and high schools use BBb tubas. (Some use EEb, and some advanced ones use CCs and F)
North America practice seems to favour the use of CC as contrabass tuba while German orchestras tend to use BBb.
F tubas and Eb tubas are used as bass tubas. This seems to be much more a a personal preference.

Rotors vs piston, tends to be more of a personal horn. Although, more American manufactures make horns with pistons and German makers rotaries. There are exceptions, of course. some people claim that the sounds changes because of one or the other. I would tend to think that too many other variables are at play to really believe that.

_________
OK, how's that for a neutral, "non-troll" answer?

To MY ear, I feel that a CC tuba blends a little better with other instruments and have slightly better response. BBb tuba have slightly more weight and "bottom" to the sound. Not saying that a BBb can't blend of course. I honestly don't think that an audience member would be able to tell the difference out in the hall. It all just comes down to what YOU prefer playing. I don't really have a lot of experience playing Eb so I wouldn't be able to tell you much about that but, I would say the same, just personal preference.

Difference between piston and rotors: I own a C with pistons and an F with rotors. I love the feel of them both. I DO however have a preference toward pistons. Not because of sound or anything, It just feels more comfortable for my hands. I have played two Miraphone BBbs: 191 with rotors and 1291pistons. Both horns are very similar in terms of size. I feel the rotor horn is slightly brighter sounding than the piston horn. But again, to an audience member, the difference is so small that it wouldn't be too noticeable.

Conclusion: there are many varieties of tubas out there which produce different sounds. Its possible to get a small BBb tuba and make it sound like an F tuba. There are endless combinations. Just always sound good and have fun

bloke wrote:

TubaTinker wrote:Pretty good question. But... I can't wait to see the 'entertaining' answers!

I only know of three kinds of tubas:

+1

Left out the "tenor tuba!" Commonly in Bb, octave above the BBb contrabass, in some cases designed as such or could be the same as "euphonium." One example would be Bavarian, Tyrolean etc. folk music where I've seen an oval euphonium serve pretty well on the bass line. (Though the "steirische harmonika" accordions they use barely need it, perhaps this should be added as another variety of tuba since they're also called "helikon bass" accordions.)

Thanks for the replies, everybody!

Read, if you have access to, Clifford Bevan's The Tuba Family. I think he covers all of this.

I've seen that book mentioned before, and I've placed it in my Amazon wishlist.

It's interesting to see that most replies basically says that there is no difference. (Or that the differences between individual tubas are too large to make any generalisations possible.) But that brings me back to the reason why I started this thread: In the weeks I've been reading this forum, I've already seen multiple comments along the lines of "this Eb-tuba feels like an F" or similar things. What do someone mean when they say that?

Or if those distinctions indeed are useless to make, what distinctions are useful? How would you (general "you" - I'm hoping to get all the differing views here) categorise tubas?

Left out the "tenor tuba!"

That was on purpose. Same for not addressing euphs, subcontras and other such things. I'm just trying to get a grip on the common tubas (and I don't generally see a euph as a tuba - while it's technically the same, it usually has a very different role in a band, and it feels quite different to play IMHO).

Trumgottist wrote:(and I don't generally see a euph as a tuba - while it's technically the same, it usually has a very different role in a band, and it feels quite different to play IMHO).

For sure, and yet we might recognize that there's some overlap after all.

And that illustrates the issue that I think you have encountered here: while there may indeed be some real, hard and fast differences between various kinds of tubas, the differences assume a kind of enhanced reality in our heads. Your question seems to be about the original reality of actual tubas, so the answers are accordingly more carefully objective.

Perhaps this might help you:

http://www.galvanizedjazz.com/tuba/Diversity.html" target="_blank

Art Hovey wrote:Perhaps this might help you:

http://www.galvanizedjazz.com/tuba/Diversity.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

No, that only explains tunings and other things that I'm quite familiar with. Thanks anyway.

Thanks! I think I'm beginning to get the idea now. I don't quite get one sentence, though:

It's in C, meaning that it works better with the strings and woodwinds

Why would being tuned in C make the instrument work better with strings and woodwinds?

Ok, I see where you're coming from (and I can agree with you with your point regarding playing in sharp keys), but it's not really true as far as the woodwinds are concerned. Bassoons prefer a couple of flats, and unless the clarinet players have switched to A, so do they. And because they're fundamentally different in their design, I can't think of anything in the instruments that'd make them blend better with a brass instrument because they happen to be tuned in the same key. Remember that the woodwinds don't have the same relation to their keys as the brass: There's nothing special about a C on a clarinet or a bassoon.

Trumgottist wrote: Bassoons prefer a couple of flats...

Having spent most of the last four years playing Bassoon, I have to disagree with this. Personally I found a preference for sharp keys in my playing. Though flat keys are very simple on the instrument, sharp keys are much more fun and are just as easy. (Again, IMHO) It really depends on who you're asking and what music they play most often.

From Kiltie: "no one complains that their low C doesn't sound good on an Eb... just sayin'..."

That's because the problem note on Eb would then be low Bb. And it can be a problem on many Eb's but we just suck it up and play the stinking note. But not as nicely as most of the other notes.

I could sure complain about the low Bb on my old Eb giant bass, but wouldn't do much good. It has been cause for embarrassment.

TubadudeCA wrote:

Trumgottist wrote: Bassoons prefer a couple of flats...

Having spent most of the last four years playing Bassoon, I have to disagree with this. Personally I found a preference for sharp keys in my playing. Though flat keys are very simple on the instrument, sharp keys are much more fun and are just as easy. (Again, IMHO) It really depends on who you're asking and what music they play most often.

Interesting to hear. (I'm a bassoon teacher by training and profession.) I based my assertion on the fact that most (all?) bassoons have problems with f# being the worst note on the instrument (getting too high and being a bit unstable), and that the c# is placed slightly awkwardly with the thumb going all across the instrument. But as you point out, that's something you can get used to with a bit of practice, and it'll feel natural if you've played in those keys enough.

My main point was that woodwinds don't have the same connection to keys that brass and strings do. It's mostly a matter of fingerings. (And a few bad tones - on a bassoon it's the f# and to some extent the eb, on a clarinet it's the g', g#', a' and bb' that are a bit unstable unless you add extra fingers…) That's pretty true about brass too. Strings have that extra resonance thing with the open strings, but I don't know anything inherent in any wind instrument (bagpipes and non-chromatic instruments excluded of course) that make the instrument respond differently (to the listener) in different keys in the hands of a good player. Please do enlighten me if you know different.

Many of the posts have acknowledged the preferences of their authors, but some have also presented those preferences disguised as fact. Anybody generalizing an Eb tuba as being clear and balanced, while a Bb tends to be woofy, has never compared a Conn/York/Holton Monster Eb Bass to a Yamaha YBB 621, where anybody listening would come to the opposite conclusion.

Here's my taxonomy, since any discussion of the differences has to start with a common set of definitions:

Bass Tuba: Pitched in Eb or F.

Contrabass Tuba: Pitched in Bb or C, below the bass tuba.

Tenor Tuba: Pitched in Bb or C, an octave above the Contrabass Tuba.

Those definitions are orthogonal (literally) to the fatness of the tuba. And the fatness of the tuba accounts for most of the differences people note between categories.

So, F tubas are not that different from Eb tubas because they are a foot-and-a-half shorter, but rather because most F tubas tend to be tell-bell designs in the German tradition while most Eb tubas bring visions of either the Besson Sovereign (and its clones) or the Monster Eb Bass (in its various forms). And a small Bb contrabass tuba like the Yamaha 621 is going to be a lot closer in sound and response to any moderate or large F than it will be to any 6/4 contrabass tuba.

The typical F is different than the typical Eb more for historical reasons than for functional reasons. The F's roots are in the Wieprecht design tradition, which took root in countries under German influence. That has evolved into tall, relatively narrow rotary F tubas that are the primary instrument in current Germany, for example. (The Berlinerpumpen valves on the original Wieprecht tuba are the precursor to the rotary, despite their external appearance. Cerveny made that transition probably in the 1840's.) That evolution has led to wider and wider intstruments with increasingly pronounced bell flares.

The Eb evolved from the Adolphe Sax design that used top-action Perinet valves instead of the rotary valves. (Sax and Wieprecht were competitors.) That design approach took root in France, Belgium, Italy, and the British Empire. One major milestone in that tradition was the introduction of the Blaikley automatic compensation approach, which is now standard in instruments used in the UK and (much of) its commonwealth. But those instruments have also grown in width, particularly under the influence of John Fletcher, who was seeking a sound more like he got with his American instrument.

I'm not sure there is any real evidence as to whether Bb or C contrabass tubas came first. There is evidence of a C contrabass going back at least to the 1850s (Cerveny), and Bb instruments also from that time. C is closer to the Wieprecht tradition, though I don't think Wieprecht included a contrabass in is system (just as Adolphe Sax did not include one in his). Wieprecht's other instruments were pitched in C and F. Here, though, the historical connection fails, because C tubas are not in common use in German-influenced areas. In those areas, the Bb contrabass is the standard instrument, though it's a secondary instrument in many applications (just as the F tuba is usually a secondary instrument in the USA). Because that historical thread was lost, however, the real differences have been in the width and basic configuration of the contrabass tubas, and the pitch preferences have evolved since then.

The fat contrabass, particularly with front-action pistons, is a particularly American approach. In the late 19th Century, American orchestras used small Eb tubas, ophicleides, or even euphoniums. Right at the end of that century, contrabass tubas started to emerge as a primary instrument, and C was the dominant choice in orchestras as much as anything because of the influence of August Helleberg, one of its primary proponents. In bands, Bb was more popular simply because that's what they used, with perhaps a nod to the reasoning that all the other band instruments were pitched in flat keys, as was (frequently) the music. The tendency to wider instruments was rooted in the band tradition.

But that band tradition leaked over to the orchestral tradition when Stokowski asked Philip Donatelli to acquire a large, band-style instrument to emulate an organ-pipe sound. That instrument ended up in Arnold Jacobs's hands, and when he became famous (after WWII), so did that instrument style. His influence as a teacher has led to a wide contingent of his students using that type of instrument, and it has become dominant.

The York tuba that Donatelli ordered was likely made from Bb-tuba parts, and it was pitched in C (like the rotary tubas first promulgated by Helleberg) though it was provided with a Bb switch valve (the flat-whole-step 5th now common). The pitch wasn't the issue. That instrument is what it is because of its fatness, and instruments of that type have been made in both Bb and C (and in Eb, if you count the Monster Eb Bass).

In musical terms, the history isn't particularly important. The notion that Bb instruments work better in bands and C instruments work better in orchestras is just no longer true, even if it was ever a primary consideration rather than an ex post facto rationalization.

I doubt anyone in the audience, even a tuba player, could tell the difference between my Holton BB-345 and a Holton CC-345 played by the same person, if played from behind a screen so that the visual clues were hidden. They feel a bit different--it makes sense that if an F tuba seems more responsive than a Bb tuba, a C tuba ought to cover at least some of that ground. But I doubt they sound different. That does not mean that the sound concept of a typical band player isn't different than that of a typical orchestral player.

Orchestra players have gravitated more and more to C tubas, so that they are not overwhelmingly dominant. I think that's because of the slightly better response. Non-professional tuba players in the US have stayed with Bb because that's what they know and for most there is no compelling reason to change. This has led to the current market reality that good Bb tubas are much cheaper than C tubas of similar design and quality, at least on the used market. And to the reality that C tubas tend to be made to higher construction standards given that their owners expect to maintain a higher duty cycle. That is used to justify the higher prices, but the real reason for the higher prices is that C tuba players are willing to pay more.

So, in general:

The differences in shape and configuration vastly outweigh the differences in pitch within the bass tuba and contrabass tuba categories. 6/4 contrabass tubas of different pitch are much more similar to each other than to tall-bell 4/4 rotary contrabass tubas. And tall rotary bass tubas are much more like each other than either are to British-style compensating bass tubas, no matter whether in Eb or F. With bass tubas, the comparison is more difficult, though--there are very few British-style compensating F's, and until recently there were very few rotary Eb's of the same dimensions and quality of the best rotary F tubas.

In the USA, a community band player can bring anything, and will be judged on sound and facility. I have played in good sections that mixed C and Bb contrabass tubas, and many bands still exercise the tradition of some bass and contrabass tubas. The German and American traditions are stronger in US community bands than the British/French tradition, despite frequent exceptions. Bring what you can play well and that pleases you. In US orchestras, the contrabass tuba is the primary instrument and the bass tuba the secondary instrument, and the convention is to use C and F tubas. That's been driven by tradition and by the quality of available instruments as much as anything--one can certainly deliver a quality product playing Bb and Eb tubas.

In much of the British Commonwealth, the Eb compensating tuba is the primary instrument for everything, though this is relatively recent. Before the 1960's, the F non-compensating Barlow F (of older Saxhorn design) was more dominant in British orchestras. Since brass bands have their roots in the British tradition, those are the preferred instruments types for brass bands everywhere, whether bass or contrabass. That's as much a matter of looks as sound, but the fat versions of these instrument have a roundness of tone that is characteristic.

In Germany and places following that influence, the tall rotary F tuba is the primary orchestral instrument and the Bb rotary contrabass is the secondary instrument for use when called for. In bands, bass or contrabass could go either way, but rotary designs will still be dominant, as will pitches of Bb or F.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

Rick "play what you can commit to playing well" Denney

KiltieTuba wrote: Piccolo in C, Flute in C, Oboe in C, Clarinet in C (because of some classical works) and in A (though Bb is often used), Bassoon in C.
As we know the string family: Violin GDAE, Viola CGDA, Cello CGDA, Double Bass EBDG.

Clarinet in C is really more of a specialty for those who really feel they have to. (Possibly like Cimbasso?) Using a Bb and an A for all the rep remains quite constant.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that most modern Double basses used for orchestral playing usually use an extension down to low B. In fact, before the double bass became the standard, the violone was often tuned so that the lowest string would be a C.

Also, maybe keyboard instruments have C as the lowest pitch.* I don't know if that is solely a practical reason or partially a psychological reason, but it remains true. I would imagine that the though process of those writing music is very highly influenced by their musical development, and if that contained some piano lessons (or Organ) one might be accustomed to using low C on its own.

*This is true on Harpsichords, organs, some pianos and many pianofortes.

Rick's essay should become a standard reference on the subject.

And regarding the C scale/C tuning issue, any really good musician with any horn in any key should be able to play any note in tune relative to the scale used, key, and underlying harmony. However, playing a contrabass on a part that runs high or bass on a part that's consistently low can make the job much more difficult (and compromise your tone quality if you don't have a really wide range).

Much of the instrument size/pitch issue comes down to fingering comfort, desired timbre, ease of playing in the given tessitura, and (let's face it) what you have available. There are times playing Eb in brass band where I'd rather play a part on F tuba, and there have been plenty of times in concert band where Eb presented a ton of low range problems.

Rick Denney wrote:An essay that should become a standard reference on the subject.

Thanks!