Modern French C Tubas

[UDELBR]

All that being said, and in search of the French C Tuba, I have it on good information that the premiere of "Pictures" was done by French tubaist, Fernand LeLong, who according to my source played the work on the Bb French tuba. My source was a student of LeLong.

Since Ravel's version of "Pictures" premiered in 1922, and Lelong was born in 1939, this seems unlikely.

Also, after hearing the French saxhorn quartet Opus 333at this past summer's ITEC, I was able to speak to them a bit. They told me that Bb saxhorns are used exclusively in bands, and C saxhorns ("French tubas") are used exclusively in orchestras.

Bonus: here's a video from 1960 of the ORTF orchestra playing the entire "Pictures" tuba part on French tuba: https://youtu.be/KbeW5bm6gkg" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Bob Kolada]

Neat link! He's playing Eb and Ab 2-3, do these normally have 2 step 3rd valves?

[UDELBR]

Neat link! He's playing Eb and Ab 2-3, do these normally have 2 step 3rd valves?

Mine had a 2 whole step 3rd valve, but I cut it down to 1.5 step. Maybe he did the same.

[PaulMaybery]

ooops!!! Something is missing in the translation from my friend. Perhaps leLong was referring to himself simply playing it on the Bb, or perhaps they who did the premiere actually used the Bb. Another case where an old guy (me) gets his facts mixed up. The point I was trying to emphasise was simply that the Bb seems to have gotten considerable use as well. Thanks by the way for the information on LeLong.

[bort]

Wait... so building a modern French C tuba is not necessary, building 3 different keys of ophicleide *is* necessary?

[Wyvern]

Neat link! He's playing Eb and Ab 2-3, do these normally have 2 step 3rd valves?

One I tried did. That is what I was talking of odd fingerings

[Rick Denney]

Amati makes an euphonium in C ..

A euphonium has a different bore taper than a French tuba (see picture). And Couesnon only makes a 4 valve saxhorn in C, so not a true French tuba. I'm pretty sure no-one's making these any more.

Interesting graph. It seems to me that the difference in cross-sectional area tops out at a little less than 10%, which is a difference in diameter of less than 5%. That's like going from a 14.7mm bore (0.58", like a Besson) to 15.4mm (0.61"--much less than the 0.64" of a Willson 2950). On the face of it, I see no real evidence that these are different as a class, and not just swallowed up in each other's model variation.

Rick "for whom the difference in sound with the same player and mouthpiece needs to be demonstrated" Denney

[Scubatuba]

I hope this can be of help for you. I put this story board together based on information I have received, from my discussion with the Courtois factory and the European players I know, a Courtois catalog I have from 1911, and other reasearch. The saxhorn of today is the predecessor of the euphonium, and has evolved from a 6 valve non comp to a 4 valve comp. Courtois has been making the saxhorn for a couple of hundred years, some consider the standard in the industry since it is traditionally French. This is not to be confused with a Distin horn or "over the shoulder" horn.

You may notice that the Courtois 366 has a different bell taper, a little more like a french horn, and therefore a has a brighter timbre thank the euphonium. This one also has a main tuning slide trigger off the leadpipe, operated by the left thumb. I have a French Courtois instrument and the new saxhorn is being made at B&S in Germany, since the merger in 2013. Incidently, I think c saxhorns probably went out about the same time c valve trombones (Conn preacher model, and c melody sax) went out of vogue. Most or all of the groups utilized the Bb overtone series.

[imperialbari]

Interesting graph. It seems to me that the difference in cross-sectional area tops out at a little less than 10%, which is a difference in diameter of less than 5%. That's like going from a 14.7mm bore (0.58", like a Besson) to 15.4mm (0.61"--much less than the 0.64" of a Willson 2950). On the face of it, I see no real evidence that these are different as a class, and not just swallowed up in each other's model variation.

The 2950 may have been listed with a 0.64" bore, when Willson used to measure their bores as the outside diameter of the 2nd slide male tubing. According to their current listing the bore of the 2950 is 0.590" which does not radically differ from that of the said Besson bore.

Klaus

http://www.willson.ch/en/instrument/wil ... m-2950ta-0

[Rick Denney]

Interesting graph. It seems to me that the difference in cross-sectional area tops out at a little less than 10%, which is a difference in diameter of less than 5%. That's like going from a 14.7mm bore (0.58", like a Besson) to 15.4mm (0.61"--much less than the 0.64" of a Willson 2950). On the face of it, I see no real evidence that these are different as a class, and not just swallowed up in each other's model variation.

The 2950 may have been listed with a 0.64" bore, when Willson used to measure their bores as the outside diameter of the 2nd slide male tubing. According to their current listing the bore of the 2950 is 0.590" which does not radically differ from that of the said Besson bore.

Klaus

http://www.willson.ch/en/instrument/wil ... m-2950ta-0

I remember that now that you mention it. So, how about a traditional American euphonium, which has a bore of about 0.560" and a 10.5" bell, versus the current crop of modern euphs with a bore of 0.590 and a 12" bell? Sure, they sound different. My Holton sounds different than my Miraphone did, too, and probably by a greater margin, and with greater dimensional differences. But those are intraspecies differences, it seems to me, not different species.

Would it really be noticeable if a person played a modern euphonium instead of a French C tuba when they wanted that sound? I'm betting not. I've had people tell me that the French C tuba is waaaaay different, but you know me: I like measurements.

But if a French C tuba really is bigger, then how about using an Alex 151 tenor tuba? That is a bit bigger than a euphonium. At least it can still be made, though it may not be any less rare than a new French C tuba.

Rick "who still wants to hear the difference" Denney

[UDELBR]

It seems to me that the difference in cross-sectional area tops out at a little less than 10%, which is a difference in diameter of less than 5%. That's like going from a 14.7mm bore (0.58", like a Besson) to 15.4mm (0.61"--much less than the 0.64" of a Willson 2950). On the face of it, I see no real evidence that these are different as a class, and not just swallowed up in each other's model variation.

And yet instruments sporting only these differences are built, sold, and chosen by professional players every single day. Imagine that.

Uncle "maybe they don't teach everything in traffic engineer school" Beer

[Donn]

And yet instruments sporting only these differences are built, sold, and chosen by professional players every single day. Imagine that.

I don't think he in any way suggested otherwise? The point (I think) is not that they are not differences, but that they don't put the instruments in different categories. I can't say a large bore euphonium/tenor tuba is or is not substitutable for a French C, but I'd be interested to hear how they would work out for the professional players who would choose them.

Re saxhorns, I believe the (British) baritone horn and the alto (British tenor) horn are saxhorns.

[pecktime]

Professional musicians don't know every nuance about the horns they play or that are available.

In my experience, professional musicians know little (and care less) about their instruments exact genealogy,

Professional musicans care about:

-Does the horn produce the sound I want in tune and under budget?

-Will I get gigs with this horn?

[Rick Denney]

It seems to me that the difference in cross-sectional area tops out at a little less than 10%, which is a difference in diameter of less than 5%. That's like going from a 14.7mm bore (0.58", like a Besson) to 15.4mm (0.61"--much less than the 0.64" of a Willson 2950). On the face of it, I see no real evidence that these are different as a class, and not just swallowed up in each other's model variation.

And yet instruments sporting only these differences are built, sold, and chosen by professional players every single day. Imagine that.

Uncle "maybe they don't teach everything in traffic engineer school" Beer

Well, now, that's a bit uncharitable. My point was that the data you showed to demonstrate a difference may not do that, which is a reasonable response to such data.

Yes, professional players choose the newer, larger instruments. Tuba players do that, too, but we see a growing trend to moderate that a bit, so maybe what pros do is at least partly governed by groupthink. I know--what standing do I have to say such things?

Here's a practical question: If you are tasked with playing, say, Pictures at an Exhibition, would you take a contrabass tuba, a bass tuba, a tenor tuba, a euphonium, a French C tuba, or your best wishes to the second-chair trombonist to play using his euphonium? Most tuba players these days, if they take it on at all, would use a bass tuba or a euphonium. A few might use an Alex 151G, but those are not thick on the ground.

The question I asked was: What would the difference in sound be, if played by the same player using the same mouthpiece? My suspicion is that it would fit in the sound envelope most listeners would describe as "euphonium". But I haven't heard that experiment. I don't think that 10% difference in area in the bugle persuades me that the difference will glow in the dark, but who am I to speculate?

Rick "just looking at data and asking questions" Denney

[gozer61]

I'm not sure if this is on-topic, but does anyone have or know where I can find a 6-valve C French Tuba fingering chart? I'm not having any luck searching online.

[UDELBR]

I'm not sure if this is on-topic, but does anyone have or know where I can find a 6-valve C French Tuba fingering chart? I'm not having any luck searching online.

Depends on your valve setup. Is your 4th a minor 3rd? Is your 5th a flat half-step or whole-step? Let me know and I can DM you what you need.

[Alex C]

All that being said, have any of the Chinese companies tried to produce a bass saxhorn or considered it?

Yes. I was told by a representative that Wessex is in the development stage with a French tuba now.

[tubapix]

It's on their website
https://wessex-tubas.com/collections/tu ... 2294485005" target="_blank

[Alex C]

It's on their website
https://wessex-tubas.com/collections/tu ... 2294485005" target="_blank" target="_blank

My teacher, often quoted by many, told me, "the more valves a tuba has, the more valves it usually needs." He had a six valve Mahillion in his studio which would not play in tune if it had 12 valves.

I heard one of Carl Keleinstuber's doctoral recitals where he played French tuba. Until then, I would not have considered this conversation worthy of interest.

[Alex C]

Since the discussion includes talk about saxhorns I thought I would include a link to a performance of Opus 333. They all seem to play Willson saxhorns, in Bb. I guess they are all in Bb but it's just a guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joz5fJmANho" target="_blank