TubeNet

Please discuss.

I played several York copies in the late 80s and Early 90s, never felt comfortable on one. But, I first played a Martin Mammoth in'82, then played several others over the next 30 years, and knew that was the BAT for me. I finally found my dream BAT AND had the money at the same time. I'm fighting valve alignment a bit, and one single pitch which doesn't speak at all, but the up bell makes an amazing tuba. The front bell is great, the perfect sound I have idealized in my mind. The top bell gives me much much happy.

I switched from a very nice 5/4 Rudy BBb (about 20 years old) to a 1941 3 valve 6/4 BBb bell front Holton with their short stroke (slightly different from the the Conn 20J version). The response, intonation and timbre on this particular horn is amazing. The privilege notes EEb down to AAA are as good as those on any 4 or 5 valve horn I've played including the Rudy and a 1291 5v BBb; and are easier to play. The throat on this horn is bigger than either of the Martin Mammoth and the Conn 20J both of which I have sold recently. I use the horn primarily for Trad Jazz but have done a few brass quintet and community band gigs with it. It's very heavy and at 71 years of age its more of a chore than it used to be to lug it around. A sound technician at a recent gig said this horn sounded like a string bass when amped. I usually play at a low dynamic level and have no trouble being heard - the sound is very enveloping whereas the Rudy was a bit more obtrusive. Playing at this level makes longer gigs much easier on my aging chops. I found that these 6/4 BATs are actually freer blowing and as nimble as the smaller horns - just harder to lug around.

What I think is most joyful about 6/4, big American tuba is that wonderful, pure sound on a pianissimo sustained note that can only be found on a 6/4. It is effortless and seems to defy physiology and physics in how long it can last.

Almost every 6/4 I've played has been remarkably easy to play in the upper register with a lot of flexibility in the staff and above. It is an almost joyful freedom that smaller tubas don't deliver.
Because of this characteristic, I understood why Gene Porkorny wanted to use the Jacobs-York instead of an F tuba when he played the Vaughan Williams in Chicago.

With the right horn, the sound-color of a 6/4 tuba seems more pronounced in a large ensemble and you can use that, more than simple volume, to be heard. Smaller horns don't have that.

There's a bouncy sense that you can get when playing on accompaniment parts on 1 and 3, and a snap, or a bite, to staccatissimo notes.

Lastly, when a lot of sound is needed, playing a good 6/4 is almost a visceral experience when you turn on the afterburners. However, that is the time when breathing becomes an issue because playing a 6/4 tuba, as a friend of mine said, it is like blowing into a washtub.

There are negative aspects, to be sure, intonation being foremost. The BAT instruments that have 'tamed' the intonation issue seem to loose the visceral edge and have a different characteristic when pushed to the higher dynamics.

I had forgotten the joy of playing a BAT. Thanks for prompting me remember.

tuben wrote:

bloke wrote:The lack of "burn" in the sound of typical BAT tubas at very loud dynamic levels

It's that lack of 'burn' in 6/4 tubas (in general), less than really aggressive 6/4 players, and modern American orchestral brass playing in general that I find so BORING.

Terribly boring.

I very much agree, but sometimes the tubist is NOT the soloist and broad foundation, without being aggressive is in fact preferred

I agree that the Joy of BAT is in the breath of sound and not some kind of ability to bury the entire orchestra/band. I'm lucky in the my Kali has a great low range, unlike all but one other 6/4 ( a 6450/2, the only one of three 6450/2's that had a good low range) that I've tried. But I really don't notice the breath of sound thing in the low range so much. It is in the bottom part of the staff where I really get that wonderful feeling of being able to completely envelope the sound of the ensemble with mine without over powering it or over balancing it. Kind of like providing a big solid foundation.

tuben wrote:

bloke wrote:The lack of "burn" in the sound of typical BAT tubas at very loud dynamic levels

It's that lack of 'burn' in 6/4 tubas (in general), less than really aggressive 6/4 players, and modern American orchestral brass playing in general that I find so BORING.

Terribly boring.

To me, the primary characteristic of a good BAT is color. And color means that the sound has a nice, tall stack of resonant overtones all the way up into the middle range. Color is what makes the sound penetrate rather than getting swallowed up, and it's what makes it "present" rather than "distant". Even in a big room, it provides a more intimate sound than a kaiser, which is more forbidding. I think that sort of color has to be felt as much as anything, and I've never heard the effect properly recorded.

But playing it off-pitch will undermine the color and suck the resonance right out of it. BATs seem to me rather easy to play outside the center of the resonance, and require constant vigilance and conceptual commitment. Using a mouthpiece intended to produce a darker (less colorful) sound is another way to undermine what a BAT can do. Overblowing it will pull the rug right out from under it.

A colorful sound on a small tuba makes it sound like a big and wonderful euphonium, and perhaps a small tuba is better aimed at being dark and commanding. But a big tuba has the depth--those overtones line up right down to the fundamental and produce a difference tone in the ears of the listener that really put a floor under the ensemble. When I hear Gene play the RVW on the York, I hear that floor, without any hint of woofiness. That's why I use a mouthpiece in my Holton that might present a little too much edge on a small tuba.

I've played BATs that lacked that color, and others that presented it with barely a breath of air. But that is, to me, the Joy of BAT--it's what makes a good BAT a good tuba.

Rick "thinking that the tendency to louder and louder playing--with technical perfection--is pretty constraining on musicianship, but is unrelated to the use of a BAT" Denney

Amazingly, even though when the term was first coined and it really was referring to a specific type of tuba (big being only one of the parameters), today we have so many different types of BATs that it's kind of difficult to pin down specific characteristics for the species. Surely, a testament to the efforts of many manufacturers to provide us possible products of a variety of shapes and configurations. To me, the real joy of playing a BAT is the ease with which the horn is played. For my tastes, most other instruments require a ton of physical work to operate. Not my BAT. It frees up my mind to focus on what matters: the music. As Rick described, there's nothing like that amazing array of overtones in a good BAT sound. Nowadays, if I don't bring the BAT, people ask why. That includes everything I play, including brass quintet gigs. The horn is universally adored. Works for me.

Like others, I think most of the joy is the sound, when the sound is good. I go through phases when I think as an amateur with a day job and several other commitments, thus with limited practice time, I may be in over my head, though.

I already concluded that once, sold the horn and instantly missed it. Got another one vowing it would be in the estate sale my children have when I die. Realistically I may have to go to something smaller, but I'm not going to pull the trigger unless and until I'm certain it's necessary. That cavernous resonance is just too sweet.

I've noticed that in a fairly live room, the sound hangs around long enough for me to seemingly breath before my reverb completes. Makes it easy to sneak in unnoticed breaths. The same thing doesn't happen with normal sized instruments.

tuben wrote:
As the topic is BAT, I think we should ignore sousaphones in this topic.

I once read through the old posts where the term was being defined, and it seems to me there was some level of agreement, maybe not full consensus, that among the defining characteristics were piston valves, a short leadpipe, and a bell throat that was at least a certain minimum diameter. If that's true, there are several tubas on that list that are big but don't count in this category.

Okay, the term BAT has acquired a narrow definition like any other jargon.

It did not originally apply only to American-style grand orchestral tubas. The first time I saw it was when Tony Clements was defining the quarter system. The smallest category (I don't remember how many quarters it was) was defined as, "Is that a euphonium?"

And the largest (6/4) was defined as: "That's a big-*** tuba!"

I've tried to find that post in the old Tubenet archives, but have failed.

"BAT" applied to 6/4 tubas, but the connection to Yorkish designs was the result of Hirsbrunner wanting people to realize that its new Yorkbrunner was bigger than the popular "5/4" rotary kaiser tubas of the date. So, for those who were wanting something bigger than their Rudi 5/4 or their Alexander 164, the Yorkbrunner was bigger. Only Rudolf Meinl marketed a "6/4" tuba of the rotary type, and it was not well-known in those days in the U.S.

Prior to that, American manufacturers, if they used the quarter system at all, used 5/4. Conn used that designation for the 2xJ tubas, for example, and they are certainly as big as the York and its copies.

So, given that "6/4" had been applied, with the singular exception of the Rudolf Meinl 6/4, primarily to instruments of the Yorkish type. And given that Tony defined "6/4" as "that's a big-*** tuba!", the proto-TNFJ conflated the two into one term.

But I don't think we can really say a Holton is a BAT while a Rudi Meinl 6/4 is not.

Given that "BAT" is never going to be taken seriously by any organologist, I would submit that the oversized, front-action, piston-valved, American-style contrabass should be called a "grand orchestral tuba". This is what Hirsbrunner called the Yorkbrunner for a long time, and I think it ties nicely to the original of the species, the Conn Orchestra Grand Bass, 36J, that was already in use even before Donatelli ordered the York. (The previous American term was "monster", but that's not much more dignified than "big-***". Martin's "Mammoth" is better, but proprietary, just like Conn's "Jumbo", which they only applied to sousaphones in any case.)

The term "grand orchestral tuba" nicely distinguishes itself from the term "kaisertuba". The German-style BAT already had a name.

If we broaden the term thusly, then our OP has to tell us whether he is referring to the broad definition of BAT that includes both the grand orchestral tuba and the kaisertuba or the narrow definition that includes only the former. I suspect he meant the grand orchestral tuba, and that was certainly what I meant with my response (and, I suspect, what was driving Jay's response, too--he would have been contrasting his Nirschl, which is certainly a grand orchestral type, with his previous Cerveny 601, a kaiser if there ever was one, but which never attracted the same description from him as he gave here).

Then, there is the Conn 2xJ. Certainly a BAT, but it's a top-action tuba and thus doesn't quite fit the grand orchestral plan. Maybe it's the real BAT.

Rick "always dignified" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: The term "grand orchestral tuba" nicely distinguishes itself from the term "kaisertuba".

Thanks. Excellent post.

Intresting post, by Rick Denny. However it's only fair to mention that most of the US styled BATS were developed for and used in wind bands. Wouldn't it be more correct to call them something like Grand Symphonic Band Tubas? As one who taught High School Band for 2 Decades I can tell you there is no substitute for a few BATS for the sound of a band.

KiltieTuba wrote:

tuben wrote:

Jay Bertolet wrote:Amazingly, even though when the term was first coined and it really was referring to a specific type of tuba (big being only one of the parameters), today we have so many different types of BATs that it's kind of difficult to pin down specific characteristics for the species.

A great point. Think of the very different sonic colors in this list:
CSO York
Holton (York copy)
Hirsbrunner (York copy)
Nirschl (York copy)
MW 2165
MW 6450
MW Fasolt
MW Fafner
MW 197
Gronitz
Mirafone 190
Mirafone Siegfried
Alexander 164
Martin Handcraft
Conn (84J?)
Holton Del Negro
Dillon

And let's not forget....

Conn Grand Jumbo
King Jumbo
Holton Monster
Buescher Jumbo
York Monster
Martin Mammoth

These are all 6/4 (or larger) BAS..

And the Rudolf Meinl 5/4 and 6/4 BAT or the Cerveny 6/4, or any of the Conn Grand Orchestral or 2xJ and 3xJ series

There are just too many BATs and BASs

I thought BAT referred to (politely) Big American Tuba. Okay I know some people say Big Azz Tuba.

It ain't my thread but I'd say the list would be Big American Tubas otherwise you can throw in almost anything as the above point out.

Throw out the Euro impersonators! Those rotary valve freaky things don't belong in this discussion.

Alex C wrote: Those rotary valve freaky things don't belong in this discussion.

So a piston Neptune is a BAT, but a rotary Neptune, which is virtually the same size horn, is not?

Also, please consider:
Behold a photo taken at Walter Nirschl's workshop. The horn on the right is the Nirschl 6/4 CC York copy. The horn on the left is a Nirschl BBb based upon the Bohland & Fuchs (sp.?) so-called "Kaiser tuba" design with modifications by Walter Hilgers and Walter Nirschl.

Mike Roylance complimented a Facebook photo of this horn with its current owner who lives in Spain. FWIW, Herr Nirschl quoted 20,000 Euros a few months ago to build another horn like this; for now, this is apparently a one-of-a-kind tuba.

Obviously, the horn on the left is considerably taller and overall larger than the 6/4 CC York copy. Realizing that what we're discussing here is merely the coining of a term (newly-established semantics where personal opinion may reign supreme), doth not this huge horn qualify as a "BAT?" Can a Kaiser be a "subset" of BAT, especially if it's as big as this (114 cm/44.49" tall)?

Did we determine that a 6/4 Rudy Meinl behemoth, rotors and all, is not a BAT?

modelerdc wrote:Intresting post, by Rick Denny. However it's only fair to mention that most of the US styled BATS were developed for and used in wind bands. Wouldn't it be more correct to call them something like Grand Symphonic Band Tubas? As one who taught High School Band for 2 Decades I can tell you there is no substitute for a few BATS for the sound of a band.

No. Conn called the 36J the "Orchestra Grand Bass". It was clear what their intentions were.

Donatelli had the York made for use in the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Most bands of the day used sousaphones, or sometimes bell-front recording basses.

Rick "noting that orchestras can comprise only winds and bands can comprise only strings, so it's a matter of semantics in any case" Denney

That Nirschl Kaiser BBb tuba is a CLT (comically large tuba).

I'm with Alex on this one, although it was Tony's coinage to start with.

Big American Tuba is a great way to differentiate from the Kaiser tubas. British, well...BAB...Big A$$ Bessons. BABs.

How about subdividing BAT like this:

BAAT = Big A$$ American Tuba (as listed above, such as Yorks, Mammoth, 2xJ, 3xJ etc.)

BABT = Big A$$ British Tuba (as the Bessons mentioned earlier)

BAGT = Big A$$ German Tuba (or, to use the German word, Big Arsche German Tuba- thanks, Babelfish)

and so on

Yes, it's past my bedtime