Bob1062 wrote:Isn't this kinda obvious?
No. And you've kicked one of my favorite anthills, and will now have to pay the price by scrolling past a really long post that you (and everyone else) probably won't read.
Bloke is reiterating something he said a long time ago, buried in one of the threads I linked to in my comparison of my two B&S F tubas.
The low C is Issue Number One for many newcomers to the F. It was for me, because my first F tuba had a dreadful low register. Being able to play solidly in the low register was my main reason for getting rid of that tuba in favor of the Yamaha 621. I know that I'm not the only person who has based my decision on that issue, be it hobbyist or professional.
The archives are replete with questions about how to manage the low C, and which instruments do it best.
Fact is, lots of European players do just fine and don't understand our problem. So, some of our good players have a problem with it, but most of their good players don't. What's the difference?
1. Their good players play F as their main instrument, and get so used to how it blows that the way it blows defines their "normal".
2. Our good players play C as their main instrument, and the low C on an F tuba just isn't going to rock and roll the way it will on a C tuba.
Some F tubas have low C's that really do feel unfocused, and some don't. The ones that don't often have the least characteristic F tuba sound. So, the unfocused low C seems to be a byproduct of the classic F tuba sound, requiring a balance between those competing goals. One ranking member of Tubenet (from out in the woodshed) expressed the opinion some time ago that the PT-10 produces THE archetype German F tuba sound, and everything else is evaluated against it. (He may have changed his opinion since then, but I bet not.) The F tuba makers who are trying to sell into the U.S. market keep trying to get a low C that plays like the low C on a C tuba without undermining the classic sound. And some are trying to produce an F tuba that can do contrabass tuba duty, and sound like a C.
Bloke's point is that maybe this isn't the problem. We all hear folks trying out their first F tuba in various Elephant Rooms, and one of the first things they do is push in the fourth valve and belt (or is that
blat) out a low C to see how easily it plays. I've done it; we've all done it. Do we immediately pick up a C tuba and evaluate its usefulness in the world based on an immediate test of the low G? No, we usually start on low C and go up from there first. And blowing the low C on an F tuba that way we might on a contrabass is like blowing a low F on a bass trombone the way we might on a tuba. You have to feed the resonance rather than force it. I find that I have to do the same thing playing low F on my Holton Bb tuba. If I push air, the note won't speak at all.
With that understanding, some of the F tubas that have "solved" the low C problem might have given up something in the process--something important--in trying to make it play more like a contrabass.
Bloke and I (and some others) probably find common ground around the notion that against all odds, considering Communist central planning and such, the B&S folks jumped out of the gate after their formation in the 60's with an F tuba that provides perhaps the best balance of blow and sound that has yet been achieved. And maybe some of the changes since then have gained some things at the expense of things we don't want to lose. (Inexplicably to me, the low C seems harder to focus and center on the newer PT-ized B&S tubas than on the old Symphonie design with the narrow-bore 1, 5, and 6.)
One symptom of the disease is the notion that the old Symphonie is a
small F tuba. The Symphonie/3100 is 39 inches tall and has a (approximately) 17" bell. It fits, without much empty space, in the same gig bag I use for my Bb Miraphone 186. It is
not a small F tuba. Even the smaller bore of the first valves in the air path are nearly as big as the valves on C tubas like the Conn 56J or Getzen G50. You can just about roll a quarter through the main tuning slide. It's the tuba used by many an orchestra pro in the former Second World as their main instrument, and they always managed to be heard, and without sounding ugly.
When I got over my low C hangup, I started to appreciate that clear-but-floating German F tuba sound. That was an epiphany that occurred the night I brought the Symphonie home and compared it with the 621. The Symphonie had clarity, the Yamaha had the woofy fuzz of using too big a mouthpiece on too small an instrument, with too much of a big-tuba concept. One thing I did immediately after that realization was change my old error of using (and defending) a deep contrabass mouthpiece on my Yamaha. It sounds so much better with a real F tuba mouthpiece. When I did that, though, the low C on it became a little less focused. Who'da thought? Yup, I had chosen that mouthpiece the same way I chose the instrument, on the basis of the low C. But the small reduction in easy resonance on the low C was accompanied by the removal of a lot of fuzz in the middle and upper register. That clarity is a hallmark of the F tuba sound, for me. (Bloke said as much about the 621, on this forum and directed to me, probably two or three years before my little epiphany. Some of us learn more slowly.)
Now, the first thing I do when I try out an F tuba is run it up through and above the staff, starting on the low
F. That's where it has to have that ethereal quality. I wait a bit to check out the low register, just as I do when trying out contrabass tubas.
If folks would set aside their concern about the low C, and play it the way the tuba wants it to be played, they might end up with instruments that work better for them over the long haul. As usual, some blokes know their stuff.
Rick "wishing for more opportunities to play F tuba" Denney
