type of sound
-
Art Hovey
- pro musician
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 12:28 am
- Location: Connecticut
It's not the instrument. It's not the teacher. It's the player's own personality. I have known several really good musicians who switched equipment and and a different sound for a while. In each case their old sound returned as soon as they became accustomed to the new equipment. We each have our own sound in mind, and we work to produce it.
-
CJ Krause
- 4 valves
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:39 am
- Location: NW Dallas
- Contact:
-
imperialbari
- 6 valves
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:47 am
It certainly should be the personality and the aural imagination of the player, which determine the sound coming out of the instrument.
There can be problems with younger players, who "shop-around" among teachers. They don't let themselves get the time to settle.
Developing ones sound takes time. Not only mentally, but also in developing the techniques associated with the desired sound. Constantly getting different inputs will confuse the mind and shift the focuses of the technical development before any element gets settled.
The posters telling of high level players sounding the same on all sorts of equipment are right, but then players tend to end up with equipment suited to their needs.
One well known tubist, probably the one best known on the TubeNet, has reported on buying high end equipment lead by "fashion". Only a few years later to realise, that his true needs were different, even if they were less "fashionable". Nothing bad about that.
There are world class players, which I admire immensely because of their unquestionable musicianship, but which I never would study with (that they wouldn't take me as a student is another matter, but no sour grapes there).
I would rather go for teachers, with whom I agreed in sound concept. So to say being "higher level" soul-mates of mine.
As for some high level players sounding bright and some sounding "dull": Dull-sound players never would be considered high level, so I would change the spelling from "dull" to full.
Even pros have different needs and functions. Some are working as soloists and small ensemble players. That often will call for the brighter sound needed to carry clear musical lines.
Others are ensemble players, which first of all shall make the section and the full ensemble having a rounded out sound. That calls for the fuller sound with its much richer and more balanced content of overtones. Playing with that sound concept is physically much harder, as it calls for the generation of much more acoustical energy. Hence players of this type may appear less flashy and virtuoso.
Back in 1973 I had the good fortune to attend a clinic with Denis Wick, then the solo trombone of the London Symphony Orchestra.
DW told of his trombone mouthpiece model DW4AL being the one he used himself. He had developed it for his orchestral needs. However he had had to change it a few years before.
The LSO at that time was the most recording orchestra worldwide. What made DW sound ideally in the concert halls didn't work on records, where he lacked in projection.
In the wording of DW he had to modify the DW4AL, so that it added a bit more "ring" to his sound.
In my words that would be, that DW wanted a band of fairly high frequency formants added to his sound, so that his playing of musical lines were easier to follow through the tutti.
I could write for days on this topic, but I will end this posting with the probably heretic thesis, that adding this high range band of formants actually means, that you dampen all other, especially lower, frequencies by narrowing the throat and the backbore of your mouthpiece.
Klaus
There can be problems with younger players, who "shop-around" among teachers. They don't let themselves get the time to settle.
Developing ones sound takes time. Not only mentally, but also in developing the techniques associated with the desired sound. Constantly getting different inputs will confuse the mind and shift the focuses of the technical development before any element gets settled.
The posters telling of high level players sounding the same on all sorts of equipment are right, but then players tend to end up with equipment suited to their needs.
One well known tubist, probably the one best known on the TubeNet, has reported on buying high end equipment lead by "fashion". Only a few years later to realise, that his true needs were different, even if they were less "fashionable". Nothing bad about that.
There are world class players, which I admire immensely because of their unquestionable musicianship, but which I never would study with (that they wouldn't take me as a student is another matter, but no sour grapes there).
I would rather go for teachers, with whom I agreed in sound concept. So to say being "higher level" soul-mates of mine.
As for some high level players sounding bright and some sounding "dull": Dull-sound players never would be considered high level, so I would change the spelling from "dull" to full.
Even pros have different needs and functions. Some are working as soloists and small ensemble players. That often will call for the brighter sound needed to carry clear musical lines.
Others are ensemble players, which first of all shall make the section and the full ensemble having a rounded out sound. That calls for the fuller sound with its much richer and more balanced content of overtones. Playing with that sound concept is physically much harder, as it calls for the generation of much more acoustical energy. Hence players of this type may appear less flashy and virtuoso.
Back in 1973 I had the good fortune to attend a clinic with Denis Wick, then the solo trombone of the London Symphony Orchestra.
DW told of his trombone mouthpiece model DW4AL being the one he used himself. He had developed it for his orchestral needs. However he had had to change it a few years before.
The LSO at that time was the most recording orchestra worldwide. What made DW sound ideally in the concert halls didn't work on records, where he lacked in projection.
In the wording of DW he had to modify the DW4AL, so that it added a bit more "ring" to his sound.
In my words that would be, that DW wanted a band of fairly high frequency formants added to his sound, so that his playing of musical lines were easier to follow through the tutti.
I could write for days on this topic, but I will end this posting with the probably heretic thesis, that adding this high range band of formants actually means, that you dampen all other, especially lower, frequencies by narrowing the throat and the backbore of your mouthpiece.
Klaus
-
Jay Bertolet
- pro musician
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:04 am
- Location: South Florida
I think that expecting the same sound on every horn you play may be a good goal for some situations but I prefer to use the different horns to get different sounds. In addition, I allow that I can also sound very similar on different horns if need be.
These are all such universal questions in our industry. Which horn(s) matches you best? How well does the horn you play help you produce the sound you want? What allowances do you make when playing the music of different composers who wrote music for very different sounding instruments?
As I understand it, there are three basic ways to approach the problem. First, you could just change your sound by doing whatever you do with air, embouchure, execution, whatever, that makes the horn you play sound the way you want it to. Second, you could switch mouthpieces on a given horn and get the different sounds you want that way. Lastly, you can switch instruments and get the different sounds that way. I fall into the latter category and I am convinced this is the best choice for me. It allows me to maintain two tenets of playing that I hold dear. It allows me to maintain a consistent state of execution, which means I'm not radically changing how I play when switching from horn to horn. I put a good signal into the mouthpiece and the tubing does the work for me. Also, I can honor what the composer intended. Using overly large equipment on pieces that were clearly intended for smaller sounding equipment goes against my beliefs. Those who frequent this board regularly will remember that the last time I played Bruckner 4, I used an Eb tuba. I could have easily used a howtizer but it wouldn't have honored the intentions of the composer, in my opinion. Having the flexibility to produce the sound I want without having to do a bunch of physical gymnastics holds a lot of appeal for me. Keeping how I do what I do the same from instrument to instrument also helps me to be a more consistent player. I'm not sure I could do that while playing on only 1 or 2 tubas for everything.
To answer the original poster's question, it is all about the player. His approach dictates how what we hear changes. As Charlie pointed out, some guys sound exactly the same on any tuba they play. Some use the different horns for different sounds. In my mind, the best players are versatile and can produce whatever sound they need, as needed. How they get there is irrelevant as long as they can produce what they want, when they want it. After that, we're just debating about the merits of different flavors of ice cream.
My opinion for what it's worth
These are all such universal questions in our industry. Which horn(s) matches you best? How well does the horn you play help you produce the sound you want? What allowances do you make when playing the music of different composers who wrote music for very different sounding instruments?
As I understand it, there are three basic ways to approach the problem. First, you could just change your sound by doing whatever you do with air, embouchure, execution, whatever, that makes the horn you play sound the way you want it to. Second, you could switch mouthpieces on a given horn and get the different sounds you want that way. Lastly, you can switch instruments and get the different sounds that way. I fall into the latter category and I am convinced this is the best choice for me. It allows me to maintain two tenets of playing that I hold dear. It allows me to maintain a consistent state of execution, which means I'm not radically changing how I play when switching from horn to horn. I put a good signal into the mouthpiece and the tubing does the work for me. Also, I can honor what the composer intended. Using overly large equipment on pieces that were clearly intended for smaller sounding equipment goes against my beliefs. Those who frequent this board regularly will remember that the last time I played Bruckner 4, I used an Eb tuba. I could have easily used a howtizer but it wouldn't have honored the intentions of the composer, in my opinion. Having the flexibility to produce the sound I want without having to do a bunch of physical gymnastics holds a lot of appeal for me. Keeping how I do what I do the same from instrument to instrument also helps me to be a more consistent player. I'm not sure I could do that while playing on only 1 or 2 tubas for everything.
To answer the original poster's question, it is all about the player. His approach dictates how what we hear changes. As Charlie pointed out, some guys sound exactly the same on any tuba they play. Some use the different horns for different sounds. In my mind, the best players are versatile and can produce whatever sound they need, as needed. How they get there is irrelevant as long as they can produce what they want, when they want it. After that, we're just debating about the merits of different flavors of ice cream.
My opinion for what it's worth
-
imperialbari
- 6 valves
- Posts: 7461
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:47 am
Jay's posting is most interesting, even if his views are not entirely new to readers of the old TubeNet.
This posting made me realise that on my own more humble level I have had similar experiences.
On two of my favourite instruments, the Yamaha YEP641 and the King VIIB I use the same mouthpiece. I also feel that I play them with the exact same approach (aside from a very few intonation issues on the euph), but the aural output is definitely different.
Playing the Besson 981 Eb bass is very much like playing the YEP641, whereas its a bit of a different story with the BBb basses. They are noticeably more demanding physically.
Klaus
This posting made me realise that on my own more humble level I have had similar experiences.
On two of my favourite instruments, the Yamaha YEP641 and the King VIIB I use the same mouthpiece. I also feel that I play them with the exact same approach (aside from a very few intonation issues on the euph), but the aural output is definitely different.
Playing the Besson 981 Eb bass is very much like playing the YEP641, whereas its a bit of a different story with the BBb basses. They are noticeably more demanding physically.
Klaus
-
Wyvern
- Wessex Tubas
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:00 pm
- Location: Hampshire, England when not travelling around the world on Wessex business
- Contact:
Re: type of sound
I think the core of the sound comes from the player, coloured by the tuba being played. The tubas we tend to prefer are the ones which best help us to produce our own sound concept for the music we play.
That is why I find the Neptune the right BAT for me - it is the one which best helps me produce my sound concept in the same way that my PT-15 helps me produce my sound concept for an F tuba. Many of us go through a number of tubas until we hopefully eventually find the sound we are searching.
We all have differing sound concepts and differing personal playing characteristics, which explains why we don't all like the same model tubas.
That is why I find the Neptune the right BAT for me - it is the one which best helps me produce my sound concept in the same way that my PT-15 helps me produce my sound concept for an F tuba. Many of us go through a number of tubas until we hopefully eventually find the sound we are searching.
We all have differing sound concepts and differing personal playing characteristics, which explains why we don't all like the same model tubas.