TubeNet

What's the official technique for playing a walking bass line or pizz. bass style part on tuba?
I notice most people do this poorly and don't pull it off well, usually too short and burpy.

My tendency is to "jazz tongue" or not really tongue, just pulse the air. I don't like tongue on the front of the note for this style, and really don't like any space between the notes. Think about it like you were actually playing bass, you wouldn't mute every note. Seems that large bore tubas (and I do think it is the bore) don't respond very well to this approach.

I'm thinking the right answer is something in between? What works for other people, especially to make it work on a large or big bore tuba?

We don't have a string bass in our band this year, and one of our jazzy numbers does have a walking bass line. Like your "pulse" idea, I was thinking of treating each note as though <> was written below it, and not playing them staccato.

Any particularly excellent examples come to mind?

Sure, on my own I do fine unless I play nonstop too long and gradually deteriorate.
But in section playing (of players FAR more advanced than I) it never really gets in the pocket.

The drummers in the fore-mentioned Louis Armstrong recordings always use a basic "swing" pattern which is fine for big band but totally inappropriate for dixieland. The drummer should stick to using the snare & bass drum and sometimes the hi-hat/crash cymbal but NEVER use the ride cymbal, as this was not the vogue in the 1920s.

For that matter, the tuba neither, am I right? Walter Page started playing lines like that when he switched to string bass in the '30s, but not so much in his '20s work on tuba, nor was anyone else doing that, that I can think of. Anyway, I don't get what the Dukes of Dixieland have to do with the '20s?

I've played bass for 42+ years. Some of the biggest disagreements I've ever had with conductors have been over the assertion that I should play all notes staccato when imitating string bass parts on tuba.

Edit: and by staccato, they meant super short with no sustain. String bass played finger-style usually has a very strong attack compared to the sustain that comes afterward, and a lot of players put a definite separation between notes in the interest of clarity. Some non-bass-playing conductors only really pay attention to the attack and don't realize the sustain portion is there.

There is a definite place for the super-short style in playing bass lines on tuba, but there's also a definite place for a more sustained style, especially when playing long walking bass lines. In the end, it comes down to taste.

https://youtu.be/lniod4-9r7E" target="_blank" target="_blank

Not exactly walking bass throughout the whole song but I like his style. Walking bass is definitely not staccato.

Boy, does this topic tread on touchy ground. Yikes.

There are polarly opposing "stacattos"
1. Equals half the value of the note. No decay.
2. A fast decay on the note, no definition for the rest of the note.

I like to think of it not so much as staccato but as a subdued marcato followed by a decay into the next note. Notice how a bass playing pizz begins with a rush but quickly decays--definitely not a staccato, but not bowed either. Works well for me.

Good description Scott. Whether on 'walking bass' lines in 4/4 or just playing '2 beat foxtrot,' I have found that, in trying to 'mimic' the sound of a plucked bass, even something as "sacrilegious" as slap tonging between the teeth produces something close to a desired effect. Heck, even in baroque trumpet playing, that is a 'ligitimate' articulation in the inventory of techniques. Back in the 196Os, when Lucien Caillet was directing the West Jersey Symphonic Band, we were playing some Victor Herbert or Gershwin chart with a pizz (string bass) effect. Old Herb Myers dove into it and I swore he sounded just like a string bass. He was using a big old Conn recording bass with an old Helleberg (not the large one), and it seemed that on those old huge horns, the decay of sound worked much better that on my rather tightly focused German rotary. Another fellow friend of Herb's in the band, during break, mentioned that as well as I played classically, that I needed to learn that technique if I wanted to ever get work in Philadelphia. I did and I did. There is another fellow on here, Bill Troiano, who played with Lombardo and I bet he can give some great insite. Those who have played string bass, (like yourself) understand the nature of the pizz and often the slap bass sound, which you so aptly described. But as Bloke also mentioned. Get the sound in your head and just play it. When I have played dixieland and similar styles, the King recording bass has worked well. My take is that some of those old American horns, (that have been condemned as sounding "fluffy") are best suited for this.
So, I do believe that the right equipment helps achieve the results.

I took lessons to play walking bass on a bass guitar. Connecting the notes was the basic goal, a quarter note melody if you will. This is why tuba is such a challenge to play in this style, it becomes a feat to supply the air (many times the effort of playing the same thing on the bass).

I think that Todd Burdick (Tuba Skinny) does a remarkable job of making that big horn sound like a string bass and otherwise playing a trad jazz bass line. It's not just the rhythm and meter, but getting the "decay" of the note to sound like a plucked string. Tuba Fats, of course, did the same.

I guess we might not all of us be looking for the same thing. The original question was about walking bass lines or bass pizzicato, which actually are two different things (though of course they can occur at the same time), and accordingly the discussion has been to some extent at cross purposes. For me, the tuba in bloke's Dukes samples didn't sound in any way like a string bass, but it was an excellent tuba sound, which to me is the point. If for some reason you're obliged to emulate the sound of a string bass, per se, I guess you know what that sound is, so ... good luck!

TheGoyWonder wrote:Seems that large bore tubas (and I do think it is the bore) don't respond very well to this approach.

One theory people have is that you can balance some of the properties of the bore, with your choice of mouthpiece.

I was just recently thinking that a smaller cup diameter mouthpiece might put a little color into the lower range, in a way that adds definition and helps with this walking bass thing - maybe particularly with a large bore.

Donn wrote: I was just recently thinking that a smaller cup diameter mouthpiece might put a little color into the lower range, in a way that adds definition and helps with this walking bass thing - maybe particularly with a large bore.

This is one reason I'm using the quite small TU17 most of the time -- though the 981 clone is far from a large bore. And "color" and "definition" are exactly the terms in which I was thinking when comparing the sound between the TU17 and the 3XL on that horn.

Bob Bigalard wrote:The drummers in the fore-mentioned Louis Armstrong recordings always use a basic "swing" pattern which is fine for big band but totally inappropriate for dixieland. The drummer should stick to using the snare & bass drum and sometimes the hi-hat/crash cymbal but NEVER use the ride cymbal, as this was not the vogue in the 1920s.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying the Dukes of Dixieland are doing it wrong?

ghmerrill wrote:And "color" and "definition" are exactly the terms in which I was thinking when comparing the sound between the TU17 and the 3XL on that horn.

In the lower part of the range? That's what I thought was kind of surprising. We don't normally think of going small for the sake of low notes. But I guess we do indulge in some overly simplistic thinking, sometimes.

Donn wrote: In the lower part of the range? That's what I thought was kind of surprising. We don't normally think of going small for the sake of low notes. But I guess we do indulge in some overly simplistic thinking, sometimes.

It may also have to do in part with the shape of the mouthpiece. The TU17 is a German-style bowl-shaped mouthpiece. The 2XL, while very deep, is more Helleberg-ish. The TU17 slots extremely well on my horn and the intonation is spot-on, and the articulation is great. The 2XL gives a broader and more "booming" tone, but is harder to control (and not just because it's the XL variant, I think).

This evening I found that my section mate (with a 186) didn't show up, and I was therefore the only tuba. We played several pieces that required sustained walking bass parts (Glen Miller, for example) and also the third movement ("Burlesque") of Persichetti's "Divertimento". So a lot of time in the compensating register -- or in and out of it. There were times when I wondered "Maybe the 2XL would be better here," but I didn't switch. I think it would have required more effort and produced a less focused and interesting sound. My section mate is now using a PT 50 and it sounds great in the low register. But she doesn't like to venture to or beyond the top of the staff.

In a possibly related vein, I just today tried a Yamaha 60B on my bass trombone -- expecting it to not amount to much. It's not real deep and not real wide. Slightly wider than a Bach 1.25GM, but with (to me) a much more comfortable rim and a somewhat smaller backbore. Shallower, and slightly narrower than a Wick 00AL. Again, a German bowl-shaped piece. Very easy to play, and the pedal notes come out easier and with better tone than on the larger mouthpieces I've been trying. Slots perfectly and plays perfectly in tune. I think it may become my primary bass trombone piece.