TubeNet

This was going to be a reply to a question about orchestral mps, but it seemed as though the topic should perhaps be addressed as "a new topic."

Over the past 40 some years I have had many experiences playing what we can call "tradional" band music in both professional and amateur situations. What I found was that there was often a reluctance to embrace "band tuba playing" as a style of its own, and thus so many players would approach things purely from an homogenized orchestral perspective. What happened was that so much of what a tuba actually provides a band gets watered down or thought of as "corny" and the rhythmic vitality that the tuba could provide the band becomes weak and/or nonfunctioning.

IMHO, and many others with decades of experience, there is really no one ideal sound for tuba. Things like tubas and mouthpieces are simply tools to get a job done, and an appropriate set of tools is what we look for to achieve the desired results. And - those results are rather subjective as to the taste of the tubaist, colleagues in the ensemble and the conductor's wishes. PHFEW!!! Sorry to presume to lecture.

Okay my point is that the choices for equipment these days offers so many options. One thing I have noticed is that I tend to choose somewhat different mouthpieces for band playing - but it really depends on the type of band and the nature of the literature.

For me the most problematic is the playing of "time" such as in a march, where a continuous pattern is played over and over with a certain nuance that "drives" the band (and promotes the tempo a little ahead of the beat), rather than just "following along" in time with the music. Tuba playing in traditional band music is becoming a "lost art'" We are continually listening to and admiring great orchestra players, soloists and chamber players. But we rarely embrace the tuba in a band as something that might have totally different issues. (But that is entirely another thread)

In my mouthpiece suitcase are roughly 50 mps that all work very well in the right setting and on an appropriate tuba. What I look for in a "band" mp for traditional band (rather than orchestral) playing is something that gives me just a little resistance and thus something to blow against when playing marches etc. Most modern mouthpieces these days have slightly more open throats, and coupled with large bore (free blowing) tubas wind up sucking the wind out of you, making you work so much harder to get a very defined - almost percussive shape to the sound. My trusty 1930s Conn Helleberg, with a rounded rim for me works just great. Others such as the Conn 2, Bach 24AW also provide a similar effect.

Now please understand I am NOT referring to modern symphonic band or what has been called wind ensemble literature. That literature usually does not have its bread and butter in marches and other "quick time" effects. I love my G&W MMVI Alan Baer, the Monette Prana 94, PT88+ and the other "big boys." They are wonderful for when huge sound scapes need to be created.

So consider what the job is and what tool helps you achieve the appropriate results. And - consider the size of the throat. "Big" is not always the Best."

Paul (who actually loves playing "umpah" as well as great orchestral tuba, but when he plays a traditional band gig, does not try to pretend he is in an orchestra) Maybery

Could it depend somewhat on the tuba? I would go along 100% for my King 1240, but have more mixed feelings when it comes to my relatively large bore sousaphone. If I'm in shape for it (and usually I'm not), a Marcinkiewicz H series way big throated mouthpiece seems to make more of the potential of that tuba, and I don't sound a bit orchestral! (I guess - I suppose I should listen to some orchestral players, since you say we all do!)

Depends on so many factors....and is really personal preference anyway...
But IMO, a section of 5/4 and 6/4 "orchestral tubas" and deep-funnel mpcs used in a brass band/wind ensemble/concert band sounds too dark/too tubby to me.

Back in college, I used to buy recordings of the orchestra and wind ensemble concerts I was on. Early on I used a deep funnel mpc on my 5/4 CC. I felt the sound was too dark and not quite 'bouncy' enough for my tastes. I then switched to bowl mpcs and liked the sound much better -- I could hear a pretty noticeable difference on recordings. The bowl mpcs offered more overtones and the sound was just overall a little warmer/fatter.
I use bowl mpcs on all my tubas.

I recently listened to a brass band in my area. Very good group. The tuba sound was big and present, but also a little too tubby/heavy, IMO. One of the guys was using a large 6/4 BBb and I think if he were using a 4/4 BBb instead, the tuba sound would have had a better overall blend with the group.

So, its not just mpc, but mpc + tuba + player.

I studied with Paul when he was just getting his historical band going. He did a great job and I still try to sound like the instruction he gave me. Years later:

I have my own historical band now, in it's fourth year. My wife runs the rehearsals, I do the rest. We talked about gear for this purpose and between us we agreed: the old time bands used the newest, best gear they could get their hands on, and (we believe) would exchange old horns for better new ones, given the chance.

We use the best musicians I could find, and they in turn bring the best horns which are modern ones. In this sense I think it's a valid recreation of the historical setting. As for replicating the actual gear, I didn't know anybody possessing it, including me.

As to the original question, for me it's Kellyberg. A friend asked why I would use it instead of a "good mouthpiece", and I took it off the horn and bounce passed it like a basketball to her. Here's the lineup from last night's performance of Sousa, Fillmore, etc. Soprano sax covers 1st Clarinet, Alto Sax is sometimes playing the part of Eb cornet, Eb Alto clarinet, Eb clarinet, and Eb alto sax. Wagner tuba player had played horn on a transcribed euphonium part. When we kept asking her to play louder, she asked if she could change instruments. You can see how it worked out.

Town Band photo by swillafew, on Flickr

You can find "Town Band" on youtube to hear it.

For me, the mpc choice has very little to do with the music I play or what ensemble I am with. Mpc choice for me depends mostly on the tuba I am using. I have one I use for f, one I use for CC and BBb. Sound is a concept that you develop, style is determined by what type of music you play. Mpc choice is very individual but how you sound in solo, quintet, band or or orchestra to me is all the same, clean, beautiful, clear and most of all musical.

I agree with Tom Mack. I don't change mouthpieces depending on the ensemble, I change mouthpieces depending on the horn I am using.
ScottM

mctuba1 wrote:Mpc choice is very individual but how you sound in solo, quintet, band or or orchestra to me is all the same

I could see this - if "band" means the kind of thing described in the opening post as "modern symphonic band" - which he goes on to say, is not what he's talking about.

PaulMaybery wrote:So consider what the job is and what tool helps you achieve the appropriate results. And - consider the size of the throat. "Big" is not always the Best."

Indeed! Yes, there are many mouthpieces that work for band. I agree - something with a little bit of resistance to help define the line. I don't play anything larger than the "P" (.323) throat anymore.

The main difference as far as I am concerned for a criterion of a "band" mouthpiece: blend. In orchestra, there is usually one tuba. It provides the foundation for whatever is being played, so there are different criteria for what constitutes a proper foundation. In band, (hopefully) there is a section of two to four to however many, and to a limit, the more the better. Providing foundation is still the function, but less critical on a "per player" basis (unless, like me, a player has ended up being the only guy or girl who bothered to show up. But I digress....). Blend, a unified section foundation, is paramount. For example, the tuba section for my last community band concert last night:

newer 17 3/4 inch bell Miraphone w/ Miraphone Rose Orchestra
older 16 1/2 inch bell Miraphone w/ Miraphone Rose Orchestra
Yammy Alex-copy w/ Bach 25 (a trombone doubler who doesn't want a larger mouthpiece)
my "Bessophone" w/ Imperial and modified spacer

The section produced a big, wide, deep, proper foundation to the band in the regional university performing arts hall, where the regional symphony also plays. A good concert was had by all.

The tubas all had different bells, so each had its own "signature" tone. The one constant in all of this, besides all four being rotary tubas: all of the mouthpieces had the same throat diameter - all @ .323 or 8.2 mm, so the "blow" was essentially the same, and resulted in a unified section.

PaulMaybery wrote:Over the past 40 some years I have had many experiences playing what we can call "tradional" band music in both professional and amateur situations. What I found was that there was often a reluctance to embrace "band tuba playing" as a style of its own

Need a better name for it, I bet is 90% of it. "Band" is too generic a word, and in this crowd means an ensemble that probably doesn't really call for such a distinct tuba style.

Donn wrote:Need a better name for it, I bet is 90% of it. "Band" is too generic a word, and in this crowd means an ensemble that probably doesn't really call for such a distinct tuba style.

I agree. Whatever happened to, simply, "Concert Band"? The term encompasses all the rest of the name variations on the theme, as the instrumentation and repertoire [Eastman notwithstanding] is basically the same, and is a traditional name derived from military bands, to distinguish its purpose from marching bands. The name "Concert Band" is straight forward, and even the average not-musically-oriented person knows it is a group of all sorts of instruments that you blow through, not pluck, bow or beat, not an orchestra with strings, not a jazz band, not a British-style brass band, not a rock-n-roll band, etc.

And "Concert Band" tuba is a distinct style, albeit with flavors: provide a solid foundation for the rest of the band, be versatile enough to play a variety of styles, have the flexibility to blend in section, have the faculty to perform a wide range of technical, lyrical and dynamic demands, and have the endurance to play a two-hour concert.

Concert Band.

I think not, but he'd have to clarify.

PaulMaybery wrote:Now please understand I am NOT referring to modern symphonic band or what has been called wind ensemble literature. That literature usually does not have its bread and butter in marches and other "quick time" effects.

I've played in a couple local ensembles that could in theory be called concert bands. The university wind ensemble where I remember playing stuff like Persichetti, Dello Joio; the community college affiliated concert band, where I remember show tune arrangements; an unaffiliated band where we wear non-matching band jackets and play exclusively marches. None them jazz bands, all of them can and do play marches, all of them have tubas and trombones etc., essentially the same instrumentation. One of them is not like the others, though. We could say it's because it features more marches, or because it doesn't have bass clarinets etc., but the key point for present purposes is of course, whether it calls for a different tuba style, even though it may be playing the same notes in the same piece in an ensemble composed of the same instruments. I think it does. I wouldn't bet my life it's exactly what Paul Mayberry was talking about, but maybe close.