Why a CC?

[Chuck(G)]

I think a big reason (at least what I've seen and heard) is:

"My teacher told me that I need to play a CC"

I've always thought that if you wanted a tuba for those "sharp keys", one in B natural would be the cat's pajamas...

[Chuck(G)]

It's hard to argue against the reality that a really good euphonium is an easier instrument on which to play The Carnival of Venice or Flight of the Bumblebee than is a really good BBb tuba...

But is it even easier to play on a euphonium in C (over one in Bb)? I'd say that the difference is very small indeed.

The business of "teacher says" was heard by yours truly from a young student-to-be very very recently.

[Chuck(G)]

These B natural tubas are actually quite easy to come by...Just do the *"less challenging" stages of a BBb to CC "cut-down", and simply stop at that point.

I think that Sam Green had a Walter Sear BBb rigged with an ascending 5th valve that would put his horn in BB.

[me]

until recently it defintly seemed as if the high quality horns being made were CC. so this kind of opens up a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" type discussion, but i'm certain that the availability of professional quality BBb tubas had a lot to do with the instruments lean towards CC. i know i know, there are pro quality BBb tubas. there weren't years ago, and more importantly the really nice BBb's aren't in america. i've heard that rudolph meinl BBb tubas are fantastick, but the ammount of rudolph meinl anything that comes into this country ever year is kept at a minimum. also, a lot of my trumpet playing friends (several who are employed in full time orchestras) use C horns. they say that c trumpet is incredibly common. and there is also need sometimes for other keys such as A or bass trumpets in G (i think). so the argument that "the rest of the wind section is tuned to Bb" doesn't hold water. the tuning of other instruments around each other don't have much to do with each other.

[Anterux]

In Azores - Portugal the wind bands used mainely Euphoniums in C. But today almost everyone is changing to Bb.

I think, in this case, it has to do with the quality of the instruments. It's hard to find a good new C euphonium.

[MartyNeilan]

bloke "who would say that the euphonium is the easiest wind instrument to play that he has encountered...even easier than tenor sax"

Yeah, yeah, I know its an alto...

[Lew]

But is it even easier to play on a euphonium in C (over one in Bb)? I'd say that the difference is very small indeed.

again, roughly 1/6 of the way to a cornet...a slight but detectable difference...

...but it seems to me that a "euphonium-sized" instrument is just about the ideal length contraption for human operation. As a shorter more cornet-like instrument or a longer more tuba-like instrument it encountered it seems to me as though a brass instrument becomes less human-friendly.

bloke "who would say that the euphonium is the easiest wind instrument to play that he has encountered...even easier than tenor sax"

That is an interesting theory. In what way do you find euphonium more

human-friendly

I find tuba to be easier to play due to the larger mouthpiece. Although it takes less air to play a euphonium, the smaller mouthpiece makes it more tiring to play, especially if I haven't played it in a while.

On the BBb/CC question, I think this has been debated to death, but I have never felt comfortable playing a CC tuba. Maybe it's because I haven't given it enough of a chance, but I can't get the sound that I want out of them. I haven't noticed any discernable response difference either.

I find Eb easier to play the high range more clearly, but at the expense of a not as quick response on the low range. I don't know that a blanket statement that a CC tuba responds more quickly because it is shorter is absolute.

[smurphius]

A good point has been brought up. In orchestras, Bb, C, D, Eb, piccolo, and other trumpets are used. A and Bb are both very common. Eb alto trombones are sometimes neccesary. Contrabass trombones come in F and Bb.

It's all a matter of choosing what YOU sound best on. The concept of sound in your head needs to be reproduced through the instrument you play, whatever it may be.

[Rick Denney]

I suspect that the existence of a C tuba started with Cerveny, very early in tuba history. Perhaps as early as the 1850's. Wieprecht had Moritz build a tuba in F, as opposed to Eb. All of Sax's competing instruments were pitched in Eb and Bb. The notion of arranging the system of instruments in fifths must have been appealing at some level, leading Cerveny (who was building instruments very much closer to Moritz than Sax) to make a C contrabass tuba.

Most tubas in orchestras in the later 19th century (at least those orchestras that used tubas) seemed to use either F or Eb instruments. The small Eb with a 15" bell seems to have been the standard tuba in American orchestras after the ophicleide and before the rise of successful professional wind bands in the early 20th century. The F tuba was and still is the standard orchestral instrument in Germany and in countries following the German tradition. The standard orchestral tuba was also an F in the British empire, until the 1960's. When a contrabass tuba was needed, it was more likely to be a Bb.

It may have been the rise of the professional bands in the U.S. that led to the use of contrabass instruments as the standard orchestral instrument here. Quality tuba players who concentrated on the big instruments dominated the professional scene, and I'm sure either filtered into or influenced professionals in orchestras--professionals like Philip Donatelli.

But then Donatelli's conductor (Stokowski) wanted an organ-like depth to the sound in the Philadelphia Orchestra, and Donatellit ordered the instrument from York, pitched in C. The C instruments used in orchestras before that time were those like the Sander that was used by Helleberg (who may have been the real progenitor of the C contrabass in American orchestras), which Bell had copied for his own use. Bell's King copy seems to have been the hot setup in the first half of the 20th, and many other players who came of age during that period also used them. Helleberg's Sander seems to be a direct descendant of Cerveny's rotary tubas dated back to the 1840's.

At the time Donatelli ordered the York, Conn also made a 36J Orchestra Grand Bass that was pitched in C. But the intonation of that instrument is known to be funky, particularly the hyperflat third partial, and perhaps Pop Johnson persuaded Donatelli that he could do better.

I think I'm prepared to doubt that anyone woke up one morning and said "C would work better than Bb". I think some used C tubas because they came out of the Cerveny/German influence and others used Bb because they came out of the Sax/Distin/Keefer/Lyon and Healy/Holton tradition. It fell to later generations to attempt to justify or rationalize these actions.

As confirmed a Bb tuba player as I am, and as strongly as I recommend them to hobbyists and amateurs seeking advice on this choice, I agree absolutely with Bloke that C tubas are that little bit more responsive. My F tubas are more responsive still, and by the expected greater amount.

But I also think that C tubas often have the fatness of a Bb tuba but with less length, making it a faster taper that introduces more challenging intonation issues. At the high end, some of these issues are resolved, but we hobbyists and amateurs usually aren't fishing in those waters.

Rick "who thinks it just happened" Denney

[MikeMason]

with the homoginization of pro tubist sounds(all the pt6s in recent auditions),i think it's kinda nice to have some different views and sound concepts out in the rest of the world.I couldn't be happier with the sound i'm getting on my holton BBb in the orchestra.It's some work to play,but doable.I'm not sure what a committee would think of the holton in an audition(even with a real tubist),but it pleased the committee i played for.The pt6s i've heard(played by some fine players) have a very complex,colorful sound rich in overtones.My holton has a lot more fundamental with a bit less refined sound.Listening to recordings of some of our concerts,its a great sound in full orchestra context.I wonder what percent faster the response would be in say a BBb and CC version of a holton or a Pt6(though i don't think a BBb 6 exists).I never get tired of these debates,as they help me analyze and refine my sound concept.If you're in the area,come hear us do Enigma next month in Pensacola and see what you think....

[Chuck(G)]

Is it really the tube length that makes for nimbleness all by itself? Is a Miraphone 184 BBb really less nimble than a someone's blunderbuss-of-a-6/4 CC?

[Joe Baker]

First, a disclaimer: the few CC tubas I've played (including the one I owned 20+ years ago) DID seem to me to be more responsive, too.

With that said, I have to agree with Chuck that it can't be just the tubing length. Rick, didn't you do an analysis that showed that on average the BBb player and the CC player play through roughly the same length of tubing? So is this Rick's intriguing "volume prinicpal" manifesting itself? Is it the fact that CC tubas are, almost exclusively, made for the "pro-level" whereas BBb tubas are mostly made for the "student/amateur" level, precursing a difference in the care given to design, construction and quality control?

Just why ARE CC tubas more responsive than their BBb "equivalents" (eg 186CC vs. 186BBb)?

One other comment I'd make: the BBb seems to even out a dicey sound better than a CC. The CC sound seems more energetic, more "raw". That's great if the player's natural sound is great; not so great if the player's natural sound ain't so hot. Comments?
____________________________
Joe Baker, whose next tuba will almost certainly be either BBb or Eb.

[Rick Denney]

Is it really the tube length that makes for nimbleness all by itself? Is a Miraphone 184 BBb really less nimble than a someone's blunderbuss-of-a-6/4 CC?

Nope, just a piece of a complex puzzle, and a puzzle where all the parts don't fit and to get a picture you have to decide which parts not fitting you can live with.

I have said in the past that with only a few exceptions, Bb tuba players play instruments of the same length as C tuba players, when playing the same music. Of course, when we sit down to an instrument in an Elephant Room, we are usually sticking pretty close to its partial series while we are receiving our first impression. When you make as big a jump as to Eb or F, you are most of the time playing a shorter instrument on a lower partial. C and Bb are so close that this doesn't happen on many notes in the middle and low registers of the instrument.

And the C tuba will play the same note with more valves when compared to a Bb tuba, except for those few notes where the C is using fewer valves on a lower partial. That means more valve tubing, more resistance, and less volume (air volume, not loudness). I think that contributes to the relatively easier response of C tubas.

Rick "who doesn't play as high or as technically as often as pros" Denney

[windshieldbug]

Most of the trumpet section is normally in Bb. Nearly all of the other wind players in an orchestra are in Bb

Nope. All the other instruments in a band are likely to be in Bb

In the ORCHESTRAS that I played in, the trumpets were likely to be in C, and the horns in F. In fact, clarinets and trombones were often the only instruments in Bb, and even then, the Bass trombone would use an F attachment.

As Rick mentioned, to play the same note one plays the same LENGTH horn, regardless of how you get there. Therefore the variable is bore ratio changes, be it a C trumpet, CC tuba, Bb trumpet, BBb tuba, Eb trumpet, or Eb tuba.

No one outside your section knows or cares what key instrument you using. I submit that as brass instruments evolved, it is the ratios that have devloped historically for these instruments that make the difference, rather than the length. Take the horn, for example. The instrument developed with a fixed bell, but with varying mouthpipes to put it into different keys. With the advent of valves, the fundimental tone of the horn became moot. It could just as well been Eb or G. Yet the key of F was settled upon because more people liked the sound that those bore ratios gave at that length.

Certainly, as bands became more popular, common keys made it much more practical and easy for a person to switch instruments, if playing alto for this concert was more desirable than cornet. So those instruments developed that way. But that is a MUCH EASIER change than telling a viola player to sit in on trumpet this week...

[Lew]

...

One other comment I'd make: the BBb seems to even out a dicey sound better than a CC. The CC sound seems more energetic, more "raw". That's great if the player's natural sound is great; not so great if the player's natural sound ain't so hot. Comments?


____________________________
Joe Baker, whose next tuba will almost certainly be either BBb or Eb.

That may be what I'm reacting to when I play CC tubas. It could just be that the BBbs that I play help out my naturally lousy sound. Either way, I know that CC tubas have never worked well for me either to improve response or to enable me to get the sound that I want.

OTOH, I was practicing my Besson 983 (Eb) the other day and my wife asked me what tuba I was playing. She really liked the sound compared to when I play some of my other horns. It's still me, but the Besson makes me seem like a better player FWIW.

[Z-Tuba Dude]

...In fact, clarinets and trombones were often the only instruments in Bb...

The clarinet's Bb-ness has only to do with it's transposition, not any sort of acoustical allegiance.

[Rick Denney]

Nope. All the other instruments in a band are likely to be in Bb

In the ORCHESTRAS that I played in, the trumpets were likely to be in C, and the horns in F.

Yup. Trumpets and tubas were likely to be in C instead of Bb. But all other instruments that also exist in bands are the same. The horn may be in F (and Bb), but it's in F and Bb in band, too.

The point is: If the fundamental pitch of a brass instrument was critical to its ability to be used in sharp (or flat) keys, then that would affect all the brass instruments. If the horns are optimized for orchestra, they should be a problem in bands. And what about all those premier military band tuba players who play CC tubas in bands? If the C is better for sharp keys, it should be worse for flat keys in band, but I don't see them pulling out BBb instruments.

I think it has nothing to do with sharp keys. It has everything to do with string players. The wire choir likes sharp keys because it's always easier to slide the finger up the fingerboard than slide it down (or so I've been told), but the temperament chosen by good musicians on fretless instruments has to do with what sounds good in a particular key. Thus, research I've seen suggests they tend to play the Pythagoran scale that singers also tend to use. That scale is not, of course, equally tempered, and thus the intonation of any given note will change with key changes as the note assumes a new scale degree. I suspect that band musicians might be challenged by an orchestra's intonation tendencies even when they play in Bb.

Besides, I play the excerpts, too, even if I don't do it in front of people, and I see flat keys as often as sharp keys. Maybe that's because I only play what I like.

I'm fortunate that the orchestra I played in was so bad that nobody could tell if I was in tune with them--they weren't in tune with each other.

Rick "who still thinks the sharp-key issue is mere myth" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Please don't flame me, but here are my reasons for the switch.

1) Yes, I agree, CC horns definitely are more responsive.

2) Winston Morris told me to.

Reason 2 is much better than reason 1, but both are good enough. I can offer two more, one of which is relevant to you, and another which has been DP's reasoning in the past:

3. Students should be able to (eventually) play them all, and the students for whom this is a special problem probably ought to consider a different line of work.

4. Making a switch is sometimes what it takes to reinvigorate a person and to take them back through their fundamentals.

And then there is another reason that applies to anyone:

5. You want to.

None of these provide the basis for encouraging an otherwise happy amateur to switch to C tuba.

Rick "who stayed with Bb because switching to C would be mighty damn expensive" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

Okay, let's see if I understand this.

A CC is more nimble than a BBb because it has less conical tubing than a BBb. After all, a low Bb played on either instrument has exactly the same length of air column overall, right?

So, the rule here is "lots of cylindrical tubing=bad".

So why does anyone even bother to sell rotary-valved instrumetns, given their placement further down the bugle (and hence, more bad cylindrical tubing) of the valveset? Why isn't the norm for rotary instruments the short-leadpipe, slant-rotor Marzan-type setup?

[GC]

Regarding the Bb clarinet quote: clarinets in A are not uncommon in orchestras for specialized uses.

And regarding the sharp-keys argument for CC tubas: the opposite can be true for bands. There are a fair number of heavy-flat-key marches that I can play easily on BBb that were excruciatingly awkward to finger with a CC horn.