Octaves in Band Tuba Parts

[quinterbourne]

I've been playing under the assumption that both octaves should be played (when there is more than one player) in band pieces.

However, I noted that many pieces don't go below low A natural (and when they do, they add the upper octave). I thought, surely they can't think that many players can't play below low A natural. I understood when they did that for anything below low E natural (for those of us with 3 valve B flat tubas).

Then I came up with a theory... what if these octave doublings are written for players of 3 valve E flat tubas? Their lowest note is a concert A natural.

So, I was thinking that for a large portion of the band pieces, all the tuba players should be playing the bottom octave if they are able to. I always thought it was stupid playing the top octave anyways, since that pitch (in that octave) was usually doubled by euphonium, bass trombone or lower woodwinds.

I remember playing a march by Percy Grainger, and the tuba part specified that the bottom octave should be played as much as possible (it was "preferred").

Obviously, there are some pieces that probably require the octave doubling. Anyways, what do you guys think about the issue? When is octave doubling necessary?

[quinterbourne]

Just to add:

When I do double the octaves, I have one tuba on the top octave and the rest on the lower octave. Well, usually it's one on top, one on bottom - as most of the groups I play in have two tuba players.

[JCradler]

Our standard practice when using 3 players, is to put one on the top part and 2 on the bottom. Sometimes the top part is just unnecessary(poorly orchestrated, doubling the bass trombone/euph, or both) and all 3 will play bottom. Other times 2 will play bottom with another an octave below the bottom line. Of course, this depends on the piece, but for 90% of marches and standard literature, this original formula works for our group.
Occasionally, someone busts out an eefer and we get closer to the model of the "olden days".

[P8822]

Being a tuba player and wind band conductor, I have some observations.

On Gene Porkorny's exercpt CD, he discusses the "alteration" of some notes/passages to better match with basses. I use that same concept in wind band playing and conducting.

I have my tuba section in wind band perform in the following way:

1 or 2 - both play bottom

3 or more tubas - 1 on the top line, the rest on the bottom. I will also alter a line to follow the contrabassoon or contra bass clarinet line.

With the advances in instruments and performers, we can now add the lowest octave in the tuba section and the sound is very thick and complements the band sound nicely. Some composers and arrangers are unfamiliar with the musical possibilities of the tuba. When some band music was written/transcribed years ago, these notes were unobtainable for the "average" player.

However, with any "spice" it can be over used and I don't allow free reign to take any thing down an octave. Sometimes is just isn't right orchestrationally. Study the scores (if possible), use good judgement and the band will sound better.

Paul Weikle
Director of Bands
Florida Community College

[LoyalTubist]

The bottom part is always more important, unless the top part has a moving line (i.e., the Trio from British Eighth March by Zo Elliot)

[iiipopes]

And here's another lump to put in the mix: in my community band we have a tuba player with good tone and technique, but no real bottom range. So with his embouchure he has to play the top octave. There are a couple of other physical limitations which add up to we're just glad he is able to play what he can on his Miraphone and sound good doing it.

Getting out my old Rubank book, and looking around at brass band arrangements, yes, the split octave thing has its history with 3-valve Eb instruments. So unless it is a piece with a specific Eb part written, I agree with bloke that 99% of the time the low notes should be played exclusively, as the high octave will be doubled elsewhere, as in my high school band which had all of the following: Alto clarinet to beef up the 3rd clarinets without making them louder, Bb bass clarinet (x2) Eb contrabass clarinet, BBb subcontrabass clarinet (affectionately known as the dinosaur) bassoons (x2) and Eb baritone sax. If someone insists on playing the high notes, one only. Period. My band director also would never let the tenor sax section be more than two people, for the same reasons, bluntly, to avoid squawking in the mids. Likewise, to get shimmer, he always had at least one good eb sop clarinet and good piccolos on top of the flutes.

[MartyNeilan]

A different approach was taken by Ray Kramer at a college honor band about 2 years ago. In a four person section, he had 3 up and 1 down on the octaves. When it as fifths, he requested 2 and 2. He said this approach was done for the sake of clarity, and it did produce a very clear, unmuddied sound. Perhaps there were other factors such as room acoustics or player abilities that also led to this. Anyone under the baton of Dr. Kramer familiar with this method?

[LoyalTubist]

I have played with band directors who have had similar approaches. And I have learned this, even though you believe (and you know) a different way works, you honor the person who is in charge of you by doing it his way.

[LoyalTubist]

If you read enough music, you don't have to count the leger lines.

[Chuck(G)]

Not much to add, except that if you determine that you want to play the upper or lower part, do it and don't jump between the parts randomly.

[MartyNeilan]

If you read enough music, you don't have to count the leger lines.

Yeah, but defense of Jared, there are times when a low E or even (pedal) D or (pedal) C comes up out of nowhere, and if you are sightreading it may be hard to tell at first glance just how many lines there are. There are a couple of pieces I have played where I wrote in "D" or "C" above the gazillion ledgers so I wouldn't have a brain fart and miscount / misread the next time I played it. Sure beats playing the wrong note in performance.

* I put (pedal) in parenthesis to avoid the ensuing debate, since on many horns these would not be true pedal tones.

[Rick Denney]

As others have said, it depends on the music. Grainger's Lincolnshire Posy has an upper tuba part that is different from the lower tuba part. We are currently playing a concert of Alfred Reed music, and Reed has written meaningfully distinct divisi parts. Reed's orchestration may indeed be full of Joe's mezzo-schmezzo, but that's what's in the music.

For us, octave divisis are always biased strongly in favor of the lower part. In San Antonio, our section of four might include one on the top part, which would either be Ray on his C tuba or me on F tuba. Usually it was me, because the upper part was least important, and Ray was the strongest player.

I do recall a session at a TMEA conference many years ago where William Revelli stated that a wind band was not complete without a bass tuba in the section of contrabass tubas. Whether I go that way or Joe's way depends on the music. In some transcriptions of orchestral literature, the upper part mimics the orchestral F tuba part while the lower part covers the string bass parts. Berlioz transcriptions come to mind, but it applies to other mid-19th-century Romantic music as well.

Rick "who thinks it's a musical question calling for a musical answer" Denney

[Tom Holtz]

When we figure this stuff out, it's always on a case-by-case basis. There's merit in all the different approaches mentioned so far. I'm sure a few people scoffed at the 3-up/1-down approach, but don't knock it. I'll bet Ray Kramer was sick of tubas playing all low octave, sounding solid, but dragging the time all to hell. That is a very real concern when the whole section heads for the basement.

If you are playing octaves in the section, make sure the pitch is totally smokin' and your time is dead on. As far as the when/how/why, use common sense and look at the score. Lots of information in the score. Especially when the top octave is tripled and quadrupled in the auxiliary large reeds.

[Karl H.]

When we figure this stuff out, it's always on a case-by-case basis. There's merit in all the different approaches mentioned so far.

Hard to agree with a jarhead, but that's the way we handle things in the Navy Band.

On our most recent CD (... Warhorses et.al) we had lots of orchestral transciptions that had octave lines. Some parts were in the euphers and other less seemly instruments, some were not. In many cases we (I) thought it would clarify things to play the upper octave, so I brought in an Alex F. Horn sings. I felt good when I heard the result: plenty of low (2 guys were on Nirschl and Yorkbrunner) and the desired clarity was produced by that lovely Alex singing up the staff and above.

Get the CD and check it out for yourself!

Karl "how do you spell Poughkipsee/Pokeepsee/Pookepsea?" Hovey

[LoyalTubist]

Did I put you down? I think not. You only really have to worry about five leger lines. I have played studio parts where some kindhearted arranger wrote 8va underneath anything below an E-flat below the staff. He also did it to the bass bone player, who also found it terribly annoying.

I don't wish any harm upon you, Jared. I have had older students who didn't spend any time during the week practicing at all, but still learned how to read below the staff.

I am very careful not to put people down personally.

[Chuck(G)]

Playing octaves may sound good, but you'll get more attention by playing tritones...

[Kevin Hendrick]

Playing octaves may sound good, but you'll get more attention by playing tritones...

It's always worked for me!

(minor seconds are good too, especially if you lip the top note down so they're actually a quarter-step or less ... )

[Art Hovey]

In some cases the upper octave is included in the "basses" part for the convenience of string bass players who refuse to learn how to read in the proper octave. But in lots of older band music (and method books) the upper octave is clearly intended for Eb tubas. The music often sounds better if everybody plays the lower part, but sometimes one player on top works well. You can't make general rules about it; just try all the possibilities and use whatever sounds best.

[LoyalTubist]

You know, I don't mind being referred to a bass player, but sometimes it gets confusing.

[Leland]

A different approach was taken by Ray Kramer at a college honor band about 2 years ago. In a four person section, he had 3 up and 1 down on the octaves. When it as fifths, he requested 2 and 2. He said this approach was done for the sake of clarity, and it did produce a very clear, unmuddied sound. Perhaps there were other factors such as room acoustics or player abilities that also led to this. Anyone under the baton of Dr. Kramer familiar with this method?

I never played under him (nor have I heard the name until now, but I don't follow the band world much anyway), but many times, I see it the same way.

I'll also expand that to say "1 on the harder part". If the upper part gets high enough, use fewer players, again for the sake of clarity.

I think that, because we're so used to our midrange sound (from about the lower half of the bass clef to an octave below), we forget how low we really are in terms of the ensemble, and we just want to play low in tuba terms.

The power & clarity comes from that middle register. For the bottom octave, not only will fewer players allow better clarity, but they'll still be heard well enough because there's nothing else playing down there. It's the same idea as being able to use just one piccolo or one to two lead trumpets in a large trumpet section -- it'll be heard more easily because it's all alone.