Excuse the reductio ad absurdum, but if the length and shape of the tubing wasn't important, then we wouldn't need valves or slides.DP wrote:That may be true, but so fragging what?? Doesn't your face, your flexibility, your ear, your musicianship have anything to contribute?
So, at some level, the length and shape of the tubing is important. If so, there is a frequency of buzz that most easily achieves the fullest resonance, that is the most effective frequency for that length and shape of tubing. As the frequency of buzz departs from that optimum, some qualities diminish. There are those who can play a Bb while fingering a C, but they don't sound their best when they are doing it.
If we define the resulting sound of the instrument with a single quality factor (which is an oversimplification), then we could probably draw something that would look sort of like a bell curve. The X axis would be buzz frequency and the Y axis would be resulting quality. As some buzz frequency (our optimum), the curve would be at a peak, and it would fall away on either side of it.
We could postulate a second curve where instead of the resulting quality, we plot the ease with which an acceptable sound can be achieved at that buzz frequency. Again, there is a buzz frequency where it is easiest to get an acceptable result, and the further we are from it the harder it is.
Of course, the buzz frequency must be consistent with the pitches being played by the other musicians in the group. That's where our musicianship and ears come into play.
But what if that buzz frequency that matches the other musicians is not in the middle of that quality (or ease of play) bell curve? Then, we have to do something to improve the quality. I'm not sure that can always be done with the embouchure, because of where I started above--at some point, the embouchure cannot overcome the error in the instrument without losing something. We can adjust the length of the instrument as we play, which shifts the whole curve to where we want to do our buzzing.
I read Joe's remarks to mean that he wants a tuba where the center of the bell curve falls within the usual range of buzz frequencies needed to play with other musicians. I did not read it to mean that he wants a tuba that relieves him of the responsibility to hear and play correct pitches.
I think this was really my answer to the other thread that you started, but your post here is the first time I had an idea of what you were getting at.
To go on, some tubas have wide, flat quality and ease of play curves (and it may be that those curves are the same). Some tubas have narrow curves. Players who buzz accurately appreciate those tubas with wider and flatter response curves, because the sound on those tubas degrades less as they buzz away from the optimum frequency. Joe has described the CSO York that way, based on his one brief opportunity to play it. I think I would describe my Holton that way, too.
And we can perhaps widen and flatten that curve with a mouthpiece choice.
In practice, I use a several alternate fingerings on my Holton, often different depending on the group in which I'm playing. And I usually push the first slide in for the 5th-partial C. For example, I often play the 6th-partial F and the 8th-partial Gb and G using 7th-partial fingerings. That part of the scale of the Holton tends sharp for me.
Rick "whose Holton has good intonation, for a big tuba" Denney
