TubeNet

I totally agree with your observation. There is definitely a bias out there to certain type of horns, etc. But I would add that there are certain accoustic differences that go along with some of the extremes you mentioned. I have heard some amzing players on sousaphone however the accoustics of the instrument I do not believe are what a symphony orchestra is looking(listening) for. No matter how good a player, there are certain aspects of physics that cannot be overcome. On the other hand I also do hate the "judgement" that is passed on a player by what type of horn he uses and its price tag. For the better part of my college career I used what would be considered by most a student 4 valve BBb tuba, until I finally decided my playing needed something different. However I never seemed to have a problem playing in all of my schools top ensembles and such. Having a "pro" horn has made alot of that easier, but I absolutely agree that the PLAYER is what matters most. And No I do not think you are going insane, I think most of us see what you are talking about in one degree or another.

Tubist of Time wrote:There are a lot of people out there that will take a look at a player's equipment and think that they can estimate how good the player is, based on how expensive their horn is.

Many years ago, the only tuba that I had access to was a Conn 24J with its 24" forward bell. I sat in a rehearsal of Illinois Brass Band without knowing beforehand that their guest conductor was Michael Mulcahy, trombonist of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, who grew up in the brass band tradition. I'll never forget the look on his face when he was tuning the band and turned to the tuba section.

HeliconMan wrote:My equipment is obviously not what most people would consider to be 'conventional' especially for a 16 year old. I know that for a while, the Prsident's Own band had 3 Martin uprights: two front action and one top action. I am not sure of the years, but it was during Ron Munson's tenure in the band.

50 years ago, the Navy Band bought a complete set of top-action Martin BBb tubas, and these were played with sousaphone bits. Wonderful instruments, by all accounts.

Fashions come and go in all instrumental circles, but I dispute the notion that tuba players are consumed by aesthetic fashion. The orchestral tuba everyone wants is one or another of the replicas of a large front-action piston tuba that was made 75 years ago, and it was similar in appearance to instruments that had been available for at least 25 or 30 years before that. They've been the orchestral horns du jour for the last couple of decades, and that's a pretty good run by fashion standards.

Sousaphones might still be popular if they were the original design, with an upright bell, and if sousa-like bands were likewise still popular. The standard sousaphone (a raincatcher) became a recording sousaphone at the same time a standard tuba became a recording bass--during the 20's and 30's when microphones needed the directional sound. By the time microphones improved and bells started pointing up again, the groups that had used sousaphones had faded, except for outdoor marching bands, where the combination of portability and directional sound was still useful.

Rotary tubas as commonly used today resemble closely the original Cerveny instruments going back at least 130 years. And the top-action piston tubas go back at least that far.

The reason you don't see many top-action tubas in orchestra auditions is that the bells point the wrong way (as bloke said) in orchestras set up for front-action instruments, and that there aren't any really first-class large CC grand orchestral tubas with top-action valves on the market. In England, however, you wouldn't be out of place at all with a top-action Eb tuba in an audition.

And in Germany, you might be out of place if you show up with a front-action piston tuba like the ones used in orchestras 75 years ago--and today--in the U.S. You'd find those rotary instruments common there--the ones similar to those in use 100 years ago.

My Yamaha front-action piston F tuba would look similar to a casual observer to a Boosey cavlry tuba, ca. 1900. And on and on.

Fashions come and go, but style doesn't. The instruments with style seem to hang around.

But there are ergonomic issues, too. I find top-action tubas tiring, if they are very large. Front-action instruments are easier to hold (whether they are rotary or piston). And my confort level for a sousaphone is all of five minutes, after which time I don't give a damn how it sounds. Designs come and go, and the ones that go are usually the ones that didn't work for one reason or another. If a design didn't catch on because of mass foolishness, then the designer just needs to wait a few years for a different set of fools.

Rick "whose tubas are all fashionable and average 30 years old" Denney

I'd have to agree with all of you. I see a lot of kids (mostly trumpet players) with top of the line equipment who can barely play the things. I have more respect for people that can get a pretty sound out of a bad instrument.

Yeah, I would definately agree w/ the fact that the equipment doesn't determine how good a tuba player is. I know this from my own personal experience. I'm a college freshmen and I'm playing a 30 year old Miraphone CC tuba. The bell is misshapened, the bell buzzes sometimes, there is duct tape covering a hole, the rotary valves make a lot of noise and there are numerous dents. Brian Bowman came to my school for OcTUBAfest this past year and he said that I had virtuosic abilities. My instructor, fellow tubists and Dr. Bowman have complemented me on my sound (I don't mean to be "stand-offish"). I get laughed at every gig I go to (or atleast get stares). So, the instrument doesn't dertermine ability.

While playing a Christmas concert at a local elementary school I overheard two young teachers laughing at the dents in my 1940 King.I was a little hurt at first because the concert was free and the old tuba was making a lot of kids smile.Upon reflection I consider my self lucky that they were not laughing at the beat up condition of the tuba player.
My tuba has "Nashville City Schools" engraved in the top of the bell in back.Any horn that withstood a high school stint in the music city and came to me many years later from Conneticut is just fine by me like it is.
tubatooter1940

After going to ITEC 2000 and hearing the tuba instructor at BYU, I can't remember his name right now, play on the rattiest, most patched tuba I have ever seen, I will never wory about the looks of a horn again. The tuba looked like it had been run over by a couple of Mack trucks, bent back into shape, and then patched to where it would play. In his hands that tuba sang. It sounded so amazing that I am still trying to match that sound today. That cemented the old saying, that it isn't the quality, or looks, of the horn that matters, it is the quality of the player. This is not saying that the horn can't limit the player, but it doesn't have to be a York or a Hirsbrunner to sound good (or to be worthy of a pro orchestra).

Sousie

Getting back to the question about never seen Helicons or Sousaphones in Orchestra, I think a lot of Orchestras might think they would look silly to the audience if they had a horn like that in the back. Everyone knows what happens whenever the tuba player puts a mute in...the audience chuckles, because that's such a big mute! I'm sure if the tuba player sounds great on that horn, then probably all of the other tuba players in the audience as well as some more musicians will be more accepting. But honestly, that's not a very big section of the audience. Most of the audience will just think that it looks funny.

I have never seen a sousaphone in an orchestra, I have heard of one being played in an orchestra within the past few years but have never truly seen it. I dont feel the sousaphone is a "disrespected"(for lack of a better word) horn. I still smile and enjoy a marching band performance when you got that University Sousa line just rockin on the field. Maybe people just feel it gels better on a football field than in a symphony.

Josh

bloke wrote: The (more experienced/better-sounding/capable-of-playing-louder) 1st part player was using a top-action Yamaha Eb (bell facing the back of the stage) and an undergrad was playing a Miraphone 186 on the 2nd part...

...All I could hear was the undergrad - playing the front-action 186.

Well, Duh. I don't get it; what does the placement of the pistons have to do with whether you can hear the sound? Like, why are you saying that top pistons apparently have a backward facing bell and front pistons have a forward facing bell? I thought there was bell-front, bell-up, top action, front action, and that these were all separate from each other.
MA, who is feeling really confused today

MaryAnn wrote:I don't get it; what does the placement of the pistons have to do with whether you can hear the sound?

Top-action piston tubas have bells that point to the player's right, and front-action instruments (either piston or rotary) have bells that point to the player's left. As you know, the tuba player usually sits stage left at the back, between the bass trombone and the string basses, at least in U.S. orchestras. A right-facing bell points into the ceiling at the back of the stage, while a left-facing bell points into the ceiling out in the hall.

To correct the problem, the right-facing bell tuba ought to be on the other side of the orchestra from where we usually see them. I don't know if this is common practice in England where right-facing bells are commonly used, but I'll bet it's something they've thought about and addressed.

And it's especially an issue when two tuba players sit next to each other but use bells that point differently.

In our band, we avoid the problem (our current two players use bells facing in opposite directions) by sitting squarely in the middle and playing louder to counteract the absorbing qualities of the stage wing curtains.

Rick "who wants an indirect path but not that indirect" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:50 years ago, the Navy Band bought a complete set of top-action Martin BBb tubas, and these were played with sousaphone bits.

Rick,
Technically, these weren't sousaphone bits. The Martin tubas of this vintage were designed using two moveable bits specifically for these horns; you cannot play the horn without them. These special bits fit together flush with cylindrical fittings, unlike the overlapping sousaphone bits found on many other horns - think a shape like >>> ). For all intents and purposes, the Martin bits were part of the leadpipe. Nowadays, many guys use Conn Sousaphone bits on the Martins because the original bits are VERY had to come by, but there are other alternatives as well.
Marty "who doesn't mean to be correcting the resident genius" Neilan

It appears to me that you WERE correcting our Resident Genius. We may have to ask Sean for a ruling.

MartyNeilan wrote:Technically, these weren't sousaphone bits.

I stand corrected. They looked like sousaphone bits on the picture I saw in Stauffer's book.

Rick "who ain't no genius" Denney