Why a CC?

[Kevin Hendrick]

The trombonists have a ton of psychological problems and yet still manage to pull it off.

trolling-for-fun posts like this one are a good example of the fact that its not just trombonists who "pull it off" from time to time

The trumpet section has all sorts of sociological and egomaniacal issues and usually use a Bb horn.

Sounds to me like a powerful argument in favor of the CC!

[tubatooter1940]

Played Bb tuba, trumpet, trombone, then guitar and now back to tuba-Eb this time.
The transition from Bb to Eb was so easy-having read for trumpet.
I work with a guitar player-accoustic. Keys that would sustain just fine with electric guitar-Bb, Eb, die off too quickly with all strings covered on accoustic guitar. We use a capo, usually on the on the first fret half the time and have been able to find sweet scales for both of us.
The arrangement dictates if guitar is first consideration- demanding open string keys of E,A,D-accoustic guitar chords enabling open string rhythm and fill or a solo tuba tune that demands me to be in a key that best permits speedy soloing and a "hot" bass line-with few intonation problems.
I recently had to change a tune from F to Eb because F in the staff is so stinkin' flat.
We carry no music onstage, just a tunelist or preordered sets with keys notated for all.
www.johnreno.com/

[tubatooter1940]

I thank you all for a brilliant discussion. I have learned so much.

[windshieldbug]

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".

Not at all, BBb-breath! A larger bore CC (with same ratios)=good!

[Lew]

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?

This is the most sensible comment I have heard yet. Can someone explain to me why a shorter main bugle on a CC tuba makes it more responsive on notes for which the total tubing length is exactly the same, expecially on two horns with exactly the same bore? I'm not being a smarta**, but am really seeking understanding. I'm not switching any time soon anyway, but am interested.

[iiipopes]

Part of it is inertia. With more of the smaller cylindrical tubing "up front," there is less mass, both of metal and air volume, that has to be set in motion. It's not the only reason, but a significant part of it.

I'm glad Statman has found his horn. Rotor paddles can definitely be adjusted for spread. I also have an issue with valves verses fingers - my 4th finger is at least 3cm shorter than my other fingers. So I play a BBb 3-valve comp, also for comfort, as well as intonation, etc.

So, if someone would solder two extra guides outboard on the 4th valve bracket of a rotary valve tuba, and thus extend out the paddle somewhat without increasing it's throw, although it would take an extra piece of rod for the offset guides and a longer shaft from the paddle to the rotor, I might consider a rotary again.

[Joe Baker]

So, if someone would solder two extra guides outboard on the 4th valve bracket of a rotary valve tuba, and thus extend out the paddle somewhat without increasing it's throw, although it would take an extra piece of rod for the offset guides and a longer shaft from the paddle to the rotor, I might consider a rotary again.

There's another (I think easier, but what do I know?) way to accomplish the same thing: First, extend the paddle so that it's long enough for you to reach comfortably. That makes for a longer throw, right? Okay, second change: offset the first change by slightly lengthening the drop from the paddle's pivot point to the attachment point for the linkage. Worst case, this might require a third change: raising the entire valve assembly away from the horn a tiny bit. So that's three changes, but it leaves the central machine alone -- and the three changes are all simple enough that I can think of multiple ways to make them, so a good tech can probably come up with more and better ones.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who doesn't see this as being all that difficult, if a person REALLY wants to play rotary valves.

[iiipopes]

I've done modeling with the dropped lever. It can put the whole mechanism out of alignment, the pull on the rotor is off level, it can drop the shaft until it can bind against tubing and otherwise really mess the horn up more than just making an extra bracket and a longer shaft to the rotor, which are then completely reversible if you want to sell the horn.

[Rick Denney]

Some pitches will be played with tubing that is the same length. Some pitches will be played with tubing that is profoundly shorter.

bottom line G/4th space G: BBb tuba...?? CC tuba...??

C & B natural below the staff/C and B natural in the staff: BBb tuba...?? CC tuba...??

Primarily the bugle is shorter, and this is quickly sensed by the player - just as it is with an Eb tuba, F tuba, and a euphonium.

You can't compare the gap between Bb and C to the gap between a contrabass and a bass tuba.

There are a few notes where the C tuba plays a lower partial and uses shorter tubing. But an Eb or F tuba is sufficiently far away so that the instrument is almost always playing a lower partial on the instrument and using shorter tubing, at least above the bottom octave.

I've run down the list of notes before--search the archives. For example, a C on the staff is played on the fourth partial on a C tuba--16 feet of tubing--and on the fifth partial plus the first valve on a Bb tuba--20 feet of tubing. But the Bb right below it is played on 18 feet of tubing and the fourth partial on both instruments, with the C using more valve tubing. (An F tuba would play the C on the open third partial and the Bb on the first-valve third partial--12 and 13 feet of tubing.)

The notion that an instrument must be uniformly conical is to me silly. It doesn't line up with the literature, and it's an impossible dream in any case because of the varying lengths of the valve tubing for different notes. But it is true that lip slurs and other acts of nimbleness are easier with more valves in play for those notes where the tubing length is exactly the same. This gives a little advantage in terms of feel to the CC player, I think. Whether the sound holds up depends on the instruments and not on the bugle length, it would seem to me.

Fact is, a great Bb tuba and a great C tuba will each have their better and not-as-good notes. That Holton you are refurbing, like mine, can give most orchestral BAT's a run for their money, right? The advantage to the great Bb tuba is the price you pay for one. Mine was well under two-thirds of what the very same instrument (in the same condition) would have cost as a C with similar playing characteristics. The advantage to the C tuba is that great ones are easier to find as long as you can afford them, owning one might keep you out of trouble with your teachers, and owning one might just be more fun or statisfying to you. All good reasons and appropriate depending on the circumstances.

Rick "who thinks the tubing length issue only applies to pairs of isntruments no more than a step apart" Denney

[Rick Denney]

It's my opinion that a BBb tuba plays and sounds too "tubby" to be considered in most non-band settings.

My ears aren't the greatest, but I can't tell the difference in sound. Neither can other tuba players by my observation. A conductor of a band I was joining came to me at the end of the rehearsal and asked me whether my tuba was a C. It was a Bb York Master. You can't judge Bb tubas on the basis of school-grade instruments, even though some of those are still wonderful.

I wonder if the tuba player in the Berlin Phil, when he pulls out his Meinl-Weston Fafner (or his Rudy Meinl Bayreuth model Bb--I dunno what he plays), is thinking "what a tubby sound". I sure don't hear it on the recordings.

It's no fair comparing a pro-quality $9000-12000 C tuba (at least in today's dollars) to a student-quality $4000 tuba, no matter what their fundamental pitch.

Rick "thinking that even though it's not fair, he's played some $9000 C tubas that were bested by $4000 Bb tubas" Denney

[Rick Denney]

...or somebody who has already made the financial commitment to purchase hs own horn, I would go with the player that has proved already that he cares enough about playing that a school horn just will not cut it for him.

I would not let that influence me for incoming freshman at a state school. In fact, that influence might just get me in trouble. For one thing, the 18-year-olds who have pro-grade instruments didn't sell newspapers to buy them (with a few exceptions, of course). Their parents did.

My niece is getting her own instrument (an instrument that costs more than a tuba at any level) at the end of her junior year in college. Her grandparents are buying it for her, because there is no way she will be able to afford her own and still do all the summer festival things that competitive performance majors are expected to do. She works two jobs in addition to her studies, and she drives a $600 car. She is financing her education with scholarships. I'm glad that her professors didn't evaluate her on the basis of her or her family's ability to buy a $16,000 instrument.

What she did do was work her butt off to play very well on that old school instrument, until she proved to her grandparents that buying her a pro-grade instrument was worth the investment.

Rick "who thinks you measure student commitment in hours, not dollars" Denney

[Rick Denney]

sounds like a similar story to my student, but his parents were convinced in high school that his futere would be brighter if they made the investment earlier rather than later.

Blessings upon their house. In our case, it wasn't in the realm of possibility. Her grandparents were not in a position to speculate, and at the time they weren't in a position to make the investment at all. And her parents would have had to give up sending my younger niece to college had they bought her a pro-grade instrument.

As I said, I'm glad her professors looked at the person and not the instrument or the depth of the checkbook that could pay for it.

Rick "noting that private lessons were never skimped" Denney

[TubaRay]

[
My niece is getting her own instrument (an instrument that costs more than a tuba at any level) at the end of her junior year in college. Her grandparents are buying it for her, because there is no way she will be able to afford her own and still do all the summer festival things that competitive performance majors are expected to do. She works two jobs in addition to her studies, and she drives a $600 car. She is financing her education with scholarships. I'm glad that her professors didn't evaluate her on the basis of her or her family's ability to buy a $16,000 instrument.

What she did do was work her butt off to play very well on that old school instrument, until she proved to her grandparents that buying her a pro-grade instrument was worth the investment.

Rick "who thinks you measure student commitment in hours, not dollars" Denney

I am so pleased to hear of this, Rick. Please send her my best wishes. She is a very deserving young lady. She has a wonderful family and (I am sure) a very proud uncle.