eupher61 wrote:to call a "French C tuba" a euphonium shows you've never played one. (I have, briefly. and played Bydlo on it.)
That instrument has been discussed many times here, and it just ain't no euph.
It's been discussed a lot, but most of it has been conjecture, and even though I've read all the threads on the subject and am not without a good memory for detail, I could not be specific about what makes a French C tuba different from a euph (other than the extra valves).
So, since you have played one, maybe you can satisfy my curiosity on several points, and we can boil it down in one spot:
1. What is the bore? Does bore vary between various French C tuba models and vintages?
2. How does the bell stack taper compare to a modern euph? Is the throat wider? The bottom bow?
3. What mouthpiece shank does it take?
4. How does the intended mouthpiece compare with modern tuba and euphonium mouthpieces?
5. What sort of tone was produced by the best of the French orchestral tuba players who used the French C tuba? Was the tone concept trombone-like? High and clear? Dark and muffled?
I do have a bias. I am always amazed at the fine gradations of distinction given to tenor tubas. This one is a tenor tuba, that one is a baritone (American style), this other one is a euphonium, and that other one is a French C tuba, and they all look just alike in general plan even to a knowledgeable observer. But those who play them regularly stick to these distinctions of definition tenaciously. Tubas, on the other hand, vary widely in configuration, with huge differences in taper width, bell size, and bore size, and yet they are all called "tuba".
But the sure way to cure me of my bias is with hard data.
Rick "wondering if the same player on a modern euph would sound that different than on a French C tuba" Denney