TubeNet

I'm in the middle-of-the-food-chain, so to speak. I recently sold my last 6/4 BBb contrabass - a really splendid 1941 Holton with the short stroke valves - because it became too damned cumbersome for my 75 year old frame to accomodate easily. I now use a 1938 4/4 York and a similar York Master of undetemined age. The 10-12 lb differential is greatly appreciated as well as the very nice Yorkish timbre of these two horns.

In most cases however, like that Holton, the tuba doesn't go to the scrap metal recycler, it falls into the hands of another player, so the sound of the big horn never dies.

Relating back to what you said earlier, bloke, I think people are honestly finding that something that big just isn't really necessary in most cases. Granted a great majority of the fad is due to a mighty fine player and pedagogue who probably could've had as much success with practically any horn as he did with the horn he did use.

Looking at the orchestral tuba players that were in the major orchestras during the early and middle part of his career, the largest thing seen in most cases (probably excluding exceptions here and there such as Philadelphia using a sousaphone for Fantasia by Disney) is probably an Alex 163.

It's also interesting to find that a number of players are finding success with a PT6 which is a large horn but by no means the same size as a York-style 6/4.

Frankly, I cannot see myself going much larger than my 1291 as for most of my playing opportunities, it can put out more than enough sound without so much as a sweat on my part.

I think you're right, but it won't seem so to most observers. Let me try and explain what I mean by that....

The 6/4 York copy (or similar big horn) will still be used, but not as often as it used to be. For pros in major orchestras there will always be some repertoire where it's the best tool for the job, but I suspect that its' use will tend to be reserved for these pieces.
However, this won't be readily apparent, and will be disputed by many people who'll say "I saw the XYZ Symphony last night and they used a Yamayork for Pictures/Mahler 5/Ride" (or whatever). Because that type of repertoire is what's more interesting for other tubists, those will be the concerts that they tend to look for, so they will get a higher proportion of "big tuba" exposure.

This is very much my journey; I have a wonderful MW 6450/2 that I used to use for most middle and large scale stuff, but since getting my Rudy Meinl 4345R there is a lot of repertoire that just works better on that tuba. By that I mean there's the right blend with trombones (and other instruments) for a large amount of the repertoire, and it's also easier to play lighter when needed.

Maybe I'm just getting old and lazy, but I've become a big fan of having the right tool for the job. I fully understand that most people can't afford to have more than a couple of "tools", and I count myself very fortunate in that regard.

I was very interested to read Chris Olka's comments in the "Hagen 497 vs Siegfried" discussion...

I've been looking for a large 6/4 BBb German style instrument to add to the stable for some time. I've played the complete Ring Cycle NUMEROUS times over the last 17 years in Seattle and recorded it in 2013...all on a 6/4 York style CC tuba, most recently on one of my YamaYorks. They work great, but I've come to believe that a German BAT in BBb is the sound I've been looking for.

I was lucky to be able to borrow an older RM BBb (pre-Bayreuth) for a recent Mahler 2, and I was surprised at how much better it worked in the orchestra than a piston CC.
So now my "best tool for the job" of playing Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner etc is a big rotary BBb - and if I can get one then the 6/4 York style tuba will spend even more time in its gig bag.

I had often thought that tuba size was directly proportional to the audience attendance and size of an orchestra.

Another words, I'm under the belief that orchestras have gotten bigger/ louder in order to have a larger/bigger auditorium.attendance.

At least that was my theory as to how we have gone from Bill Bell's to Mienl-Weston 2165's.

I hope the fad changes as well with BBb finally being less looked down upon using professionally in orchestras in America.

There's just one place for a 6/4 or butch 5/4: in a very large concert band alongside bare minimum 2 regular-size tubas. Kinda like bass trombone, I don't think you want more than one either. But even if the guy attempting to cover it on tenor is responsible and doesn't just rip it, it's nice to have the bass. 6/4 tuba is the same deal, only 1:4-6 should have it.

I don't see the point of a tuba that sounds like a string bass in an orchestra - full of ACTUAL string basses. A big tuba playing high notes is a specialty sound, used to represent a descent to Hades or the sound of fear itself. Very sparse though.

Agreed they don't sound good played BTTW. Probably because playing loud means shifting the frequency output broader and higher, but the fast expansion of bell/bows eliminates higher frequencies from radiating and the tuba can only work as a megaphone for the excess buzz noise.

Heavyweight 4/4 tubas without too large of bell throats are probably the best for playing BTTW, as they can actually sonically radiate the soundwaves you are striving for. And maybe the heaviness tapers the frequencies above the desired band and helps prevent the symptoms of overshooting the dynamic.

I think that as the size of the tuba increases, so does the need for a hoss bass trombone player.

Because the International Brotherhood of Hoss Bass Trombone Players (IBHBTP) says so!!

I haven't played the largest selection of tubas, but the Holton 6/4 gives me a low end that has never been equaled by anything else I've played in recent memory. It's present, and it's musical. I'm not talking about playing my part an octave lower or anything, these are notes well within the normal range found in band music like a Sousa march, but there are places where parts tend to avoid these notes because the normal average tuba doesn't really bring it down there. This tuba brings it.

The rest of it is about the tonal color and what you prefer. Everyone may have his or her own preference, but let me say this - it's a full, lyrical tone that is the absolute quintessence of a tuba sound. Not any kind of string bass I ever heard. If one has to play it with some acquired skill to serve in every musical context, then I think the same may be said of lesser tubas as well - I can already hear the beating of chests, sure you can compensate for the modest low end endowment of your smaller tuba, but I'd rather compensate for the full, sonorous tone of my big one.

bloke wrote:

bort wrote:I think that as the size of the tuba increases, so does the need for a hoss bass trombone player.

because...??

Added clarity. Personally, I think the 6/4 sound works just fine, but it lacks the same "bite" as the smaller horns. With a good strong bass trombone player, I think the 6/4 tuba sound works a lot better. You don't have to agree.

Maybe the big 6/4s are finally pricing themselves out. Baers, Yamayorks, and other new BATs are really really expensive, for any player. And once they went beyond what even the most irresponsible college student would spend their loan money on, there was a new market for the ca.$10-15K beefy 5/4 a 'super premium' "smaller" horn.
When discussing horns with Craig Fuller when I had the pleasure of playing with the Omaha Symphony, on what he uses his big older HB50 for, and his response was,"well only a few pieces a year really call for it, but honestly this horn lives in my locker at the hall, so it's easier to get to the stage than my Mira/Alex"

bort wrote:

bloke wrote:

bort wrote:I think that as the size of the tuba increases, so does the need for a hoss bass trombone player.

because...??

Added clarity. Personally, I think the 6/4 sound works just fine, but it lacks the same "bite" as the smaller horns. With a good strong bass trombone player, I think the 6/4 tuba sound works a lot better. You don't have to agree.

A solid bass trombone and 6/4 tuba sound can not be beat. Together they really make it happen like no other.

I got rid of my last 6/4 a year ago (Conn 36J). My largest axe right now is a BBb Alex. I've never considered my 40k to be 6/4, but regardless...
I found 6/4 tuba's usefull in the past soley when I wanted the weight and width behind a sound. Even when playing soft, it was still an elephant being dainty. Times where I was the only bass instrument in a large accoustic ensemble I found that a wide sound could sometimes allow me to do my job with less effort. A smaller tuba would have delivered more clarity, but I would have had to up my volume. The larger tuba allowed me to support the ensemble at lower volumes. The sound was low and wide, so you always heard it.
Often I can't hear the reason a musician chooses to use a 6/4 tuba in an orchestra.
On the other hand if a musician plays 90% of the time in the same concert hall it seems to reason that their instrument choice will also reflect the necessities of the hall (and the musical tastes of ones colleagues).

I think that 6/4 CC tubas will eventually be treated as special purpose instruments, much the way that big rotary BBb tubas are these days in American orchestras (Fafner, etc.) and, for that matter, even the way that F tubas are approached by American orchestral players. I suspect that we'll see 6/4 tubas physically shrinking (already happening) and that the next hot market segment will be high-end (professional? ) 5/4 sized CC tubas, of which there are some fine choices, but not very many choices.

I also think that the influence of Arnold Jacobs on equipment choice is diminishing a bit. It has now been just about an entire generation since Jacobs died, nearly 20 years. Many of today's most notable orchestral players are too young to have ever studied with Jacobs directly and many of the professionals that did so are retired or (likely) retiring soon, thus Jacobs' influence upon them and the tuba world as a whole in terms of equipment choice and possibly even overall sound concept is not what is was 35 years ago when several companies were trying to figure out how to copy the York and big name players couldn't wait to get one.

I don't believe that a 6/4 CC tuba is a defacto primary instrument requirement for symphony orchestras to not be out-gunned either. Many 4/4 and 5/4 CC tubas can make plenty of noise and can cut through or blend as necessary. Look at orchestral F tubas: even the huge ones are much, much smaller than 6/4 CC tubas and they make plenty of noise even in the largest orchestras. Going back to CC tubas...most of the fine playing that was done in Houston, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Boston, National, and Los Angeles for decades (you know, the eras/players/recordings that always get talked up here) was done on 4/4 or 5/4 sized tubas like Miraphones or Alexanders. Evidence, to me, that those smaller instruments can work just fine in even the largest and strongest of symphony orchestras.

Tom, great point about the influence of Arnold Jacobs.

Makes me wonder a bit about the influence of Alan Baer, since he (re?)designed and uses a 6/4 tuba. It's a VERY fine horn, and many people use them successfully... but... if you wanted to buy a lightly used one, you will have a LOT of options. I'm curious about what the big guy himself thinks about the 6/4 horn, and the appropriateness/need for using it. Or, how much he might advocate for using the Ursus instead of the Baer...?

Or more generally, what do 6/4 players say to other tuba players about using a 6/4? Do they recommend it? Or is it like long-time smokers, where yeah, they'll smoke with you if you smoke. But if you don't smoke, they'll tell you "don't start!"

I'm a late comer to the BAT. It has taken nearly 3 years to where I feel I can use it almost anywhere. Much of that is on the personal end of the skills, being breath control,very acute intonation and a very sensitive and flexible embouchure. I use it regularly with a rather good civic symphony orchestra of 80 some players. It has a way of lifting the wind/brass section rather than just being a pointed sound that penetrates with the rest of the brass. You may care to call that "ambience." I call it "presence." I find when I play under the other brasses, it produces such a full and solid foundation without sounding forced, that it helps them play more relaxed, even though it may be fff. It necessitated that I learn to play with next to no tension or stress in my sound, accomplished by way of an open throat and very well expanded and relaxed chest cavity. It's really a concept. I do not believe I could get the same results with a 4/4 tuba. I tried for 40 some years. So I am staying on the band wagon with the 6/4. I need wheels to schlepp it, but once at the gig, I'm able to offer a valuable asset of sound. With regard to using it in bands, I think at least 2 of them would be fine. Most of the major service bands are sporting them and get a rather "healthy" sound at that. But then again, there is a certain level of personal expertise that is assumed, that goes beyond just a huge instrument. I would not knock the instrument before first evaluating the play. Sounds nasty, but ....
And yes... in response to Bort's comment about the bass trombone. Yup, a real healthy bridge between the tuba and the tenor trombones is important. Much of the tuba sound, particularly in orchestras is complimented by the bass trombone and bass trombonist; someone who can put their sound right into the tuba sound and make it like one enormous voice. (Bight and sonority)

PaulMaybery wrote:It necessitated that I learn to play with next to no tension or stress in my sound, accomplished by way of an open throat and very well expanded and relaxed chest cavity.

It doesn't sound like you're on the path to injuring yourself, either, if that's even how it happens.

bloke wrote:I see I'm not the only one...

...Many from top-of-the-food-chain to students are "moderating"...

Ironic that our OP has these two recent posts: The first one for a Siegfried and the second for a Yamayork

bloke wrote:Perhaps (??)
With these heavy-hitters praising the new one and shrugging off the amazing one, the amazing one will be mothballed, and that been-to-many-shows amazing one's demo price will drop down into the blokezone.

bloke wrote:$2000 cash down payment
The rest ($38000) financed by you at 30% interest, with one balloon payment made by me which comes due in 480 months.

That crafty like a Fox Bloke all the while he is talking down BAT's has two current offers out there looking to pick em up cheap.

The majority of time I have brought a smaller tuba in recent years (college/community orchestra, large church orchestra) the bigger tuba was always requested. The BAT/BART project I have worked on for years is NOT a foghorn, but has a rich and clear but all-encompassing sound. It is a foundation for the ensemble that a much smaller horn does not have in girth of sound.

bloke wrote:

MartyNeilan wrote:The majority of time I have brought a smaller tuba in recent years (college/community orchestra, large church orchestra) the bigger tuba was always requested.

I just don't recall any music director or choir director or community band director (hired for a rehearsal-concert / regulars-out-of-town situations) or small combo leaders or brass quintet colleagues EVER suggesting to me that I bring or should-have-brought any-tuba-in-particular.

I have. 3 different brass quintets, a brass choir, and a German orchestra have all asked for my 6/4 CC tuba. For the brass choir and the orchestra I have no issue with that, but man I hate it when brass quintets ask for it. It's so much more work for me than playing a small C for my Eb tuba. Now I never let brass quintets know that I even own one.