Switching from CC TO BBb

[Bob Sacchi]

As a free-lancer, I have always felt that the BBb tuba is more useful for all-around playing.

Personally, I find that I am mostly in groups that play predominantly in flat keys (concert band, brass band, brass ensembles, traditional jazz bands, etc.).

I don't play much orchestra stuff anymore, but I don't remember anything in the literature that was particularly technically easier to play on CC tuba than BBb tuba, so I don't see the advantage there. However, I have seen some concert band and brass band tuba passages that have put CC players fingers in knots trying to play them, that were quite easy by comparison on the BBb tuba.

I can also see an advantage to being in the same key with your next-door neighbor, the trombones, too.

Just my .02, your mileage will vary.

Bob Sacchi

[iiipopes]

If we still could, as in the old days, it would about be time on this thread to start posting large pictures of food buffet selections and large containers of beer or other beverage of choice.

[TubaRay]

If we still could, as in the old days, it would about be time on this thread to start posting large pictures of food buffet selections and large containers of beer or other beverage of choice.

I believe you're right! My favorite is the one of the beer(at least I think there was beer, I was always distracted), which Doc would always post. I really like that German attire.

[Rick Denney]

Jeff "You sure told *him*" Benedict

I could have remained silent but that would have implied that I thought my case was inferior to Mr. Denny's. I could have argued with him but that would have been entering his arena of operation, and I really don’t have time to list and refute each fallacy within his argument. Instead, since Mr. Denny stated that my case was “no better than an assumptionâ€

[Rick Denney]

Sir: I posted my thoughts in response to a question by the Piper. I stated the logical reasons for my thoughts. I don’t need to counter your verbiage in order to feel complete. I am perfectly content knowing of your beliefs and have no desire to change them. I am happy for you to pass those thoughts on to all of your friends and family not only now but long into the future. So, good luck with the procreation of your thinking.

First, I'm not a Sir. Geeze, I feel old enough as it is. You make me feel like Samuel Johnson.

Given what I know about you (though I don't know if I'm talking to father or son), I'm not prepared to discount your comments out of hand. That's why I argue my points in detail. The detail gives you enough to counter them if you can, and correct my thinking. If you leave me to my ignorance, you show less respect for me that I have shown to you. Think about that.

You presented a single design measure that you proposed was an advantage for a C tuba over a Bb tuba. I showed how even that measure doesn't cover as much of the scale as you suggested.

But my main argument against your thesis was the notion that a single design measure is dominant or even relevant.

it's impossible to say that a C is better than a Bb because of the effect of the difference in bugle length on one single design measure such as the length of the tubing used for a portion of the scale. As I have proposed, another design measure might sway the argument the other way, and also be wrong.

I see no one single design measure that dictates how a tuba will turn out.

For example: Fred Young built his monstrosity on the assumption that valve tubing was bad. His design goal was intonation only. He's pretty smart, and I would never discount the accuracy of his design approach. I challenge the relevance of it.

In the engineering and design world, we should not optimize the design of a complex system on single design measures. We should optimize on fulfilling requirements. That's my perspective.

Rick "who learns nothing by winning an argument" Denney

[windshieldbug]

That's like saying "I could beat you up by[sic?] I don't believe in violence." It's still poking a sharp stick into the situation

I am reminded of the phrase, "Fighting for peace is like #%@$ing for virginity... "

[WakinAZ]

[Rick Denney]

That's like saying "I could beat you up by[sic?] I don't believe in violence." It's still poking a sharp stick into the situation

I had already exceeded my "but" quotient for the month. Wait till tomorrow, and I'll be able to edit it.

Rick "sic" Denney

[windshieldbug]

That's like saying "I could beat you up by[sic?] I don't believe in violence." It's still poking a sharp stick into the situation

I had already exceeded my "but" quotient for the month. Wait till tomorrow, and I'll be able to edit it.

You could have one of mine, but I gave up the habit while I was unconcious...

[markaustinhowle]

Sir: I posted my thoughts in response to a question by the Piper. I stated the logical reasons for my thoughts. I don’t need to counter your verbiage in order to feel complete. I am perfectly content knowing of your beliefs and have no desire to change them. I am happy for you to pass those thoughts on to all of your friends and family not only now but long into the future. So, good luck with the procreation of your thinking.

First, I'm not a Sir. Geeze, I feel old enough as it is. You make me feel like Samuel Johnson.

Given what I know about you (though I don't know if I'm talking to father or son), I'm not prepared to discount your comments out of hand. That's why I argue my points in detail. The detail gives you enough to counter them if you can, and correct my thinking. If you leave me to my ignorance, you show less respect for me that I have shown to you. Think about that.

You presented a single design measure that you proposed was an advantage for a C tuba over a Bb tuba. I showed how even that measure doesn't cover as much of the scale as you suggested.

But my main argument against your thesis was the notion that a single design measure is dominant or even relevant.

it's impossible to say that a C is better than a Bb because of the effect of the difference in bugle length on one single design measure such as the length of the tubing used for a portion of the scale. As I have proposed, another design measure might sway the argument the other way, and also be wrong.

I see no one single design measure that dictates how a tuba will turn out.

For example: Fred Young built his monstrosity on the assumption that valve tubing was bad. His design goal was intonation only. He's pretty smart, and I would never discount the accuracy of his design approach. I challenge the relevance of it.

In the engineering and design world, we should not optimize the design of a complex system on single design measures. We should optimize on fulfilling requirements. That's my perspective.

Rick "who learns nothing by winning an argument" Denney

I do want to correct something. I don't think you are ignorant at all, and I didn't mean to make any kind of false proclamation of superiority. That's not what I meant to do at all, and I apologize if my post sounded that way. I am a practitioner, and the points I made were very simple and obvious observations made as a practitioner. As an engineer I would hope you would offer scientific explanations as to why those observations occur, but instead, you went to a great deal of effort to minimize them altogether.

I'm glad you made your last post though because I have actually always enjoyed reading the things you say. It also gives me an opportunity to point out some things that may have led to some frustrations I have experienced. Now, I'm not going to debate or footnote what I am about to say, but its my opinion that a person should never post anything that is pro-CC tuba on Tube Net unless he has lots of time to defend himself.

I just recently reviewed everything I posted about CC tuba. Let me summarize:

1. I stated that an advantage of CC over BBb was that several of the notes used less pipe and therefore CC was easier/desirable for those notes, while there was no such advantage for the BBb tuba.
(My logic was as follows: Since the shortest fingering possible is generally used on all brass instruments, I stated that the shortest possible pipe was desirable.* I think I even stated that the reason might be that less energy was required to set a smaller volume or air into vibration.)

2. I encouraged everyone who was going to make tuba their profession to learn all four tubas while they were young so they could make an informed decision.

3. I gave a simple experiment showing why I thought it was easier/desirable to play notes with lesser amount of pipe. (Playing an open note and then using alternate fingerings that utalize longer total tubing for comparison)

4. I proposed that really low notes like D and Db might be easier on BBb tuba because of the extra valve tubing required on CC tuba.

Some of the responses I got were both surprising and interesting:

1. Tuba Ray asked a legitimate question or two and stated possible disagreement. Then Rick went into a really long response that didn't (seem to me) really relate to what I said so much but at the bottom he said that no science supported any statement that CC was any better then BBb.
My statement wasn't that CC was superior to BBb per se, Rick didn't say anything that refuted my statement that 'shorter tubing was better so long as all other variables were the same'.

[greatk82]

[windshieldbug]

The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.

Gee, silly me, I would think notes should be optimized for intonation and response, not short or long length.

Sir, I was just reinforcing this to point out to those viewing that length alone was not anyone's criteria; that intonation and response were the desired result on any horn (otherwise there would be no alternate fingerings ever employed). I had hoped the smilie at the end would convey that I was NOT offended at all and I cannot be responsible for the failure of the available smilies!

(methinks thou doest protest too much > <)

[Rick Denney]

...As an engineer I would hope you would offer scientific explanations as to why those observations occur, but instead, you went to a great deal of effort to minimize them altogether.

No, I just went to an effort to identify the effect precisely, and then question its relevance in light of my own experience as a practitioner. I may not be very good, but I have played tuba over a 37-year period. From a physical point of view, I did justify the notion that notes played on the open bugle feel more open and sound more resonant but actually have less response than those played with longer valve branches included. Compare your flexibility exercises on the open bugle with those on the fourth valve and see if you agree. For me, flexibility exercises on the fourth valve are easier but don't necessarily sound as good. (As with all generalizations, there are exceptions.) This effect seems explainable physically.

...but its my opinion that a person should never post anything that is pro-CC tuba on Tube Net unless he has lots of time to defend himself.

This is an overstatement. I've never ever argued against someone who defended the use of the C tuba. I have argued against those who defend the superiority of the C tuba just because it's a C, especially when they based their defense on conventional wisdom unsupported by new observations.

I just recently reviewed everything I posted about CC tuba. Let me summarize:

1. I stated that an advantage of CC over BBb was that several of the notes used less pipe and therefore CC was easier/desirable for those notes, while there was no such advantage for the BBb tuba.
(My logic was as follows: Since the shortest fingering possible is generally used on all brass instruments, I stated that the shortest possible pipe was desirable.* I think I even stated that the reason might be that less energy was required to set a smaller volume or air into vibration.)

I quantified "several" in detail, though I recall the word you used was "half", not "several". But it was your logic stated above that I really debated. 1.) I see no reason why the shortest possible tubing is desirable per se, nor do I agree that it takes more energy to establish vibration with the longer tube. There are some physical effects, but I don't typically feel them in practice. For example, the longer instrument does require longer for the reflected pulse to reach the mouthpiece to reinforce the next buzz pulse. That's one reason an F tuba seems more secure in the upper register than a contrabass. And I think a C would also seem more secure on some notes. I have never argued that C tubas don't feel different in some notes than Bb tubas; my argument has been that they don't sound different or that these effects are not significant enough or offset by other design variables sufficiently to constitute superiority.

2. I stated that I wished someone had presented those facts to me when I was younger so I could make an informed decision.

3. I encouraged everyone who was going to make tuba their profession to learn all four tubas while they were young so they could make an informed decision.

Fully agreed and never countered by me. As I have said many times, anyone seeking a performance degree 1.) can never use unwillingness to learn new fingerings as an excuse to avoid learning a tuba in a different pitch, and 2.) will have to show proficiency in all four pitches eventually anyway. There are too many gigs that require Bb proficiency (such as in the military bands) as well as C proficiency, and most solo work requires mastery of at least one bass tuba. But more to the point, the sort of mind that can succeed in the highly competitive professional tuba world must not the type that is intimidated by a different set of fingerings.

On the other hand, those in music education who will be largely adult amateurs can save a lot of money by sticking with Bb, and still have available to them instruments that can indeed compete for sound and purpose in occasional professional situations. There is no reason for C tuba players to feel superior to Bb tuba players on that basis alone, and vice versa.

4. I gave a simple experiment showing why I thought it was easier/desirable to play notes with lesser amount of pipe. (Playing an open note and then using alternate fingerings that utalize longer total tubing for comparison)

I agree that that will produce a better sounding note on most tubas in some cases, as when comparing the F at the bottom of the staff (on a Bb tuba) played open versus 1-3. But I don't really notice that the fifth-partial D sounds better played open versus 1-2, or that the middle C is better open versus first valve. Do you? It seems to me one needs more than the first two valves to notice that effect, at least. (And, as mentioned below, the effect is not always negative.)

5. I proposed that really low notes like D and Db might be easier on BBb tuba because of the extra valve tubing required on CC tuba.

Agreed.

Then Rick went into a really long response that didn’t (seem to me) really relate to what I said so much but at the bottom he said that no science supported any statement that CC was any better then BBb. ... My statement wasn’t that CC was superior to BBb per se, Rick didn’t say anything that refuted my statement that 'shorter tubing was better so long as all other variables were the same'.

Then you were not reading carefully. I stated that a system is designed to fulfill requirements, and requirements include intonation, sound, and playability. You presented design measures, including the use of shorter tubing, as if it was a requirement, without showing that that design measure really leads to fulfilling those requirements. That's the point I argued.

By the way, both Ray and Mike are professional C tuba players, and both of them in my hearing counsel young pro wannabes to be fully proficient on C tubas.

2. When I said “The shortest feasible amount of pipe is desirable. If its not, then all the fingering charts should be rewritten using the longest possible valve combinations.â€

[kingconn]

Don't believe the hype. Fact is you can't be taken seriously these days unless you play a CC but most people won't be able to tell the differance by the sound so play what you like.
As for me I'm back in Flat

[iiipopes]

I can play both. I have played both. If you told me tomorrow I have to play a CC for (fill in the blank), give me a little warmup, and I'm there.

I simply, unabashedly, and without much more than personal fiat prefer BBb, because I like the intonation on a comp tuba, and they mostly come in BBb (I have seen all of one CC comp, and I was told for what I needed it was not suitable intonation-wise); I love playing a souzy for outdoor gigs, and they mostly come in BBb, (The Amati excepted, and I'm not going there) and I got a great deal on my 186 tuba for concert band, and it happened to be in BBb (with both and upright and recording bell, so I can play it wherever I desire). So I am sticking with BBb for the forseeable future. If my playing opportunities and finanancial situation were to change drastically, I would definitely consider a CC, just because. One of the best CC tubas I ever played was a university owned 186 in grad school; I'd gig with it today if I could. One of the worst was the Yammy I borrowed when my Besson was in the shop before I got my 186, and it had not been maintained properly, and it was an absolute bear on intonation, both pitch and inconsistency of tone from not only register to register, but note to note. I took it to the shop for help, but it was quite apparent that the reason it was not maintained was because it wasn't used because it had problems; not the other way around. So there are good and bad of both, and in the end it comes down to politics and personal preferences as far as the controlling reasons one is chosen over the other, and not any discussion about what is "better" from an absolute discussion of the physics of sound propogation.

If tubas weren't so expensive in general, this wouldn't be an either/or thread; it would be a how many of each, as it is for guitar & bass guitar players. Yes, I resemble that remark, with currently about a dozen, and had more in the past when I gigged more regularly, and the gig income paid for the guitars as I acquired them for the various gigs.

[NDSPTuba]

There is all kinds of sound wave theory that can be debated and it takes more knowledge on it than I have to fully understand it. But if you desire, the afore mentioned Walter Lawson has produced several documents on the subject that you used to be able to request from Walter on his site. I don't know if they still are available since his passing, but they where published.

On a non tuba players point of view. I played professionally for a few years before dystonia took that away, and I never once notice nor cared what key tuba the tubist was playing. I seriously doubt any one else in the orchestra did either. I only cared if he played in tune and on time. And if he could play technically clean on challanging passages I was even more thrilled. As that seemed to be the rare bird. One who could play technically clean without all that muddled sounding flub flub on fast passages. So as far as the rest of the orchestra, we didn't give a rats *** what the key of the tuba was.

just saying

[windshieldbug]

So as far as the rest of the orchestra, we didn't give a rats *** what the key of the tuba was

Which, I think, is the short version of exactly what Mr. Denny was espousing!

[eupher61]

The unquestionable fact is:

It really doesn't matter, in MOST cases, what horn is played. There are a few exceptions, which I can't really come up with right now. But, unless one is a hard core purist, few will complain about playing Fantastique on a CC, Die Meistersinger on a BBb, or Lincolnshire Posey on a CC.

With whatever exceptions can be found (and, aside from Bydlo there may not be any...and even that might be questionable) a tuba part is a tuba part. The timbral difference isn't nearly as exaggerated as with trumpets or horns.

Of course, I'm not talking about quintet playing. I'm talking orchestra and/or band.

Solo playing is a bit more susceptible to timbral requirements. But I'd still challenge anyone to name a piece that CAN'T be played on one key tuba or other. Ease doesn't count.

IF the player has the ability, there's nothing that says it can't be done.

And, few are the conductors that will ask for a different tuba IF the job is getting done appropriately. Sure, playing a Besson F in the 1812 probably won't get it done. (well, I did it on a big F, out of necessity.)

But don't try to tell me it CAN'T be done. I certainly won't believe you or respect your opinion. Neither will many others.

Certainly, BBb or CC makes NO difference IF the job is accomplished.

[markaustinhowle]

...

[WakinAZ]

Eric "doesn't do 'internet fights' (any more)" L.