what tuba should I play in...

[Rick Denney]

I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything

Well, that puts you ahead about 99% of the population, so I congratulate you.

As far as not discouraging those who only have one instrument from exploring every opportunity, we both agree completely. And we've all been there at one time or another. (Most of us have also wished, even secretly, that we weren't so constrained.)

Rick "sometimes envious, but mostly of ability" Denney

[Mister JP]

Thanks for the response, Rick. Great insights, as usual. I really wish something like TubeNet would have existed when I was a student, my life may well have turned out much differently. Getting informed opinions of players coming from all walks of life is awesome.

Jason "who was hoping for a long response from Rick, but wasn't counting on it" Park

[Tom]

If it's the difference in getting the orchestra seat or not getting it, then by all means, it's justified.

I'll venture into scary territory and express the considered opinion that pros look for instruments that produce the product they need the most easily because the more work they have to do, the more subject they are to overuse injuries, nerve damage, and the effects of aging. As I consider the wonderful players who have had their careers cut short by, say, focal dystonia, I wonder if their equipment was the sort that made them work too hard. It's a pure speculation, of course, and may be completely wrong, but I don't doubt that they seek the instrument that makes their job the easiest.

I know lots of young pros who earned their stripes using Alexander tubas. Those produce a legendary tone, but they are a lot of work to play well. Most of those performers (not all, of course) that are in regular symphony pro gigs now play something that requires a lot less work.

Rick "an amateur who doesn't need ANY tubas" Denney

This is subject matter is of particular interest to me.

I am of the opinion that even pros make compromises in their equipment selection. If by "work" you mean response and intonation issues, many currently popular 6/4 tubas that see lots of high profile orchestral action are no less (and sometimes even more) work to play than an Alexander. I think the shift from Alexanders (in particular) had more to do with a change in sound concept (to more of an Arnold Jacobs sytle of playing) and the development of high quality equipment that took tuba playing in that direction, such as the Yorkbrunner and the 2165. As is the case with nearly any given model of tuba, some Yorkbrunners and 2165s were better than others...some were simply outstanding while others flat out stunk. In fact, 2165s are almost as notorious as Alexanders for being difficult to play. Though I'm sure some pros found these easier to play, many pros flocked to them for the sound.

For example, Matt Good of the Dallas Symphony once told me about his jump from an Alexander to a 2165, saying that the first time he played the 2165 in the orchestra, heads turned and he received comments along the lines of "that's it!" It worked better in the Meyerson and fit better into the sound concept he and the orchestra were going for.

I regularly spend time with a high profile orchestral tubist that is using a Yamaha York. His comments to me regarding the tuba and his experiences with it indicated that he is using it because "artistically" it is closer to what he wants and what the orchestra "needs" and that he does prefer it to his Yorkbrunner, though he did not say because it was easier to play, just that he liked the characteristics of the Yamaha better than the Yorkbrunner. This same pro also regularly plays on a Fafner Bb in the orchestra. Again, his comments were that "artistically" he liked the Fafner for supplementing his contrabass work for things like Wagner, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich because it was the sound he was looking for with a flavor the Yamaha York couldn't provide. He did tell me that he wished the Fafner played a bit more like a Yorkbrunner type instrument because the Fafner is a "difficult" to play, but that he is able to live with the Fafner for its purposes because he does have a Yamaha York and a Yorkbrunner at his disposal for other things.

All this means to me is that even pros make compromises in their equipment selections for a workable combination of sound and playability to suit their situation. Inonation and response issues are something they have to deal with too and just because a particular tuba finds its way into an orchestra doesn't mean that it is easy to play.

Injury relative to playing difficult to use tubas is also an interesting subject, something I'd like to study/read more about. I think there are SO many variables in that one that it would be difficult to lay blame on the equipment.

[Peach]

Rick "hoping that's not a note of envy that I detect" Denney

I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything, I do consider myself very fortunate to own my own (only) instrument, and not to have to play the 24 year old beaten up instrument that belongs to the band I play in. If I had the resources (including space and a wife of even more infinite patience) then of course I would have one of each size of tuba, including piston and rotary valves.
And of course I realise that pros and perfectionists will want to have the specific instrument for a specific application ( and no, I don't beieve the suggestion was in any way snobbish), even if it only used once in a blue moon, nor do I suggest that anyone should "settle for" anything but the best they can get.
I did say that I am amused by, but not critical of the questions or answers, and I suppose that I hope no one gets put off playing any sort of music in any sort of band because they don't have the perfect instrument.

Sorry Peter but I'm still having difficulty grasping your exact point.
You state "If I had the resources then of course I would have one of each size of tuba, including piston and rotary valves." - yet anyone with more than one instrument has presumably allocated their resources to facilitate the ownership of multiple instruments, sometimes at the expense of other material/luxury goods; that is their choice. I fail to see your point.
Also, I don't see how you can say you are 'amused by' yet 'not critical of' these questions and answers?
To be 'amused by' implies a level of criticism to me at least. Anyway, if you aren't criticising, what's the point of your post?

If you are saying it's daft that some folks try to play a different tuba in every conceivable situation then I think most people here would broadly agree with you, myself included. If however, you're suggesting single-tuba-ownership be the only way to do things, I strongly disagree.

Have you spent much time with anything but your trusty Eb (and no, I'm not including B&H Bb's - sorry AndyC if you're reading this!)??
Perhaps you'll explain your position if only for me, since I'm confused.
Best,
Mal

[Lew]

I understand the point of your original post to be that it is possible to have one tuba and, if played properly, use it in any playing situation. I would tend to agree that it is not necessary to have more than one tuba, but that does not preclude the concept that certain tubas make it easier to provide the sound concept desired for a particular setting.

I have three tubas that I use regularly, a 4/4 BBb, a 5/4 BBb, and a large Eb. As a rank amateur I found it difficult to balance well with a brass quintet even using my 4/4 BBb. I bought an Eb and found it much easier to get the tonal quality that fit with the group. I have the large BBb with a 24" recording bell that I use when playing with large groups outdoors, like on July 4 when I play with an 80+ piece band for a crowd that's usually over 30,000 people. I also have a handful of other tubas that I bought when I was making a lot of money just because I liked them for one reason or another. They get played occasionally, but I still like having them.

I can't speak for professionals, but I still think that it is a reasonable question to ask about which horn people have found to work best with certain pieces. On the other hand asking someone else what horn works for something is like asking someone else to tell you your favorite color. What might work for them is not necessarily right for you. They can provide broad generalities about certain categories of equipment, but the biggest difference in how something plays is still the lump sitting in front of the mouthpiece (which somehow actually supports your original point).

[Rick Denney]

I am of the opinion that even pros make compromises in their equipment selection. If by "work" you mean response and intonation issues, many currently popular 6/4 tubas that see lots of high profile orchestral action are no less (and sometimes even more) work to play than an Alexander. I think the shift from Alexanders (in particular) had more to do with a change in sound concept (to more of an Arnold Jacobs sytle of playing) and the development of high quality equipment that took tuba playing in that direction, such as the Yorkbrunner and the 2165.

I'll quote again from Mike, who I really hope isn't offended by me quoting things he said to me in some cases 25 years ago, "With the Alex, you can do anything, but you have to do it. With the Yorkbrunner, the thing I had to get used to was to relax and let the horn do the work."

Also, I don't in any way equate a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165. An unattributed quote from a pro this time: "The York was designed to make the most of what a tuba player could provide. The 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck could provide." Given that the 2165 was at least broadly based on a Holton, and given that I play a Holton, this has made me curious and I've made comparisons in some detail between my Holton and other large tubas of that type. And I've discovered that just because something looks like the CSO York doesn't mean it plays like the next thing that looks like a CSO York. I've played Holtons that were work (for me, at least) to make any sound on, while mine provides a rich, vibrant and colorful sound even with me playing it. I've played Yorkbrunners that seemed to play themselves (including an early hand-made model that I tried out at an ITEC in the middle 80's and still remember with fondness), and I've played them that seemed dead to me. Most 2165's I've played seemed to suck the air right out of me, and I'm sure would need someone who can move buckets of the free stuff to reach anything like their potential. I've played Nirschls that even without a tuner in front of me sounded like a non-Western instrument, and other Nirschls that would sing beautiful if you breathed into them.

Thus, I don't think I can say that all grand orchestral tubas are easier to play than an Alex, but I know that many are. They may not be as capable of tonal variation, but they do what they do with greater ease and efficiency (in terms of product/work). I know they don't get the same effect as an Alex, and I know that the effect they do get is part of the motivation for playing them, but that isn't the whole story. I also know that my Holton is far easier to play than many Holtons, and even than many high-end instruments inspired by the CSO York. It only gets difficult when I try to push it harder than it needs to be pushed (an example of needing to relax and let the horn do the work).

Quoting (loosely) again from Mike on something he wrote on Tubenet a long time ago, he tells the story of having the opportunity to buy his Alex back maybe ten years after he sold it. He described how he played it for about 10 minutes at Powell Hall, during a rehearsal, but then set it aside and went back to the Hirsbrunner. He said it was just too much work, and he was afraid the maestro would really like it and request that he keep playing it.

I don't know if it's possible to make my Miraphone 186 sound like my Holton, but I do know that trying to make it do so would be extraordinarily difficult. That's no knock on the Miraphone--there are things it does more easily than the Holton. Which brings us back to the point of the thread.

Rick "not trying to fight the battle of everyone else in the brass section playing too loudly, but agreeing that it's true" Denney

[peter birch]

I promise you that I have attained a state of maturity in which I am not envious of anybody for anything

Well, that puts you ahead about 99% of the population, so I congratulate you.

As far as not discouraging those who only have one instrument from exploring every opportunity, we both agree completely. And we've all been there at one time or another. (Most of us have also wished, even secretly, that we weren't so constrained.)

Rick "sometimes envious, but mostly of ability" Denney

don't be too quick to congratulate me, I may have that bit of my life sorted, but I have a long way to go in others areas.

And for Peach...well, the point is to provoke a discussion such as this. I am a professional educator and live by a principle that there is no such thing as a stupid question, I may be amused by the questions people ask here, but I think that that is far from being critical. Neither would I be critical of anyones choice of what they do with their hard earned resources, nor do I expect anyone else to be critical of mine. As far as owning 1 tuba or multiple tubas go, it is of course none of my business, and I have no comment or critcism for anyone whatever you have.

[Tom]

I'll quote again from Mike, who I really hope isn't offended by me quoting things he said to me in some cases 25 years ago, "With the Alex, you can do anything, but you have to do it. With the Yorkbrunner, the thing I had to get used to was to relax and let the horn do the work."

I don't doubt this was the case for him at all. In fact, I have actually played his Alexander (albeit briefly)...that particular Alexander was/is a lot of work to play and I'm sure that Yorkbrunner was easier to play.

Also, I don't in any way equate a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165. An unattributed quote from a pro this time: "The York was designed to make the most of what a tuba player could provide. The 2165 was designed to make the most of what Warren Deck could provide."

Given that the 2165 was at least broadly based on a Holton, and given that I play a Holton, this has made me curious and I've made comparisons in some detail between my Holton and other large tubas of that type. And I've discovered that just because something looks like the CSO York doesn't mean it plays like the next thing that looks like a CSO York.

I don't think I equated a good Yorkbrunner to a 2165 at all...just cited them as two prominent examples of the sorts of tubas that grew in popularity in the orchestral realm in the 80s and 90s and I beleive it is part of the reason Alexanders fell out of favor. Even the Nirschl could be used as an example. Yes, the Holton 345 (from the 1960s, I believe) was around prior to both of those. I didn't reference the CSO York at all, other than perhaps in passing when I offered up Arnold Jacobs as the sort of playing (and basis for the type of tubas) that I believe helped fuel the 6/4 CC craze. That said, I think there is a legitimate need for a 6/4 CC in the large orchestra setting to be able to keep up with trombones (also playing increasingly larger equipment over the years), trumpets, and horns. Then there is the issue of balancing 60 string players and 4 or 5 percussionists. I have not personally played the CSO Yorks, but those that have tell me that they are no walk in the park either, and that like playing an Alexander, you do it for the sound.

Thus, I don't think I can say that all grand orchestral tubas are easier to play than an Alex, but I know that many are. They may not be as capable of tonal variation, but they do what they do with greater ease and efficiency (in terms of product/work). I know they don't get the same effect as an Alex, and I know that the effect they do get is part of the motivation for playing them, but that isn't the whole story. I also know that my Holton is far easier to play than many Holtons, and even than many high-end instruments inspired by the CSO York. It only gets difficult when I try to push it harder than it needs to be pushed (an example of needing to relax and let the horn do the work).

I have an Alexander 163 CC in 4 rotors, which is the same configuration as Mike's old Alexander. Much like your particular Holton, my Alexander is a great one and is much, much easier to play than many other Alexanders. Others that have played my Alexander have all said the same thing...an exceptional Alexander. No alternate fingerings necessary, no trombone like slide manipulation, and no cut slides. Not every Alexander is a great tuba. They all have "the sound" to some extent, but some are just plain bad tubas and offer nearly hopeless or uncorrectable intonation problems (which is why they often get cited as examples of difficult tubas), but there are examples of any given tuba model like this. My point was that it is not a problem exclusive to Alexanders and I don't think it is fair to say that Yorkbrunners or Holtons or 2165s, or whatever tubas are necessarily easier to play than any other and that just as with the "Alexander sound," pros have developed an interest in a new sound, not necessarily something anymore user friendly than their previous tuba, even an Alexander.

Quoting (loosely) again from Mike on something he wrote on Tubenet a long time ago, he tells the story of having the opportunity to buy his Alex back maybe ten years after he sold it. He described how he played it for about 10 minutes at Powell Hall, during a rehearsal, but then set it aside and went back to the Hirsbrunner. He said it was just too much work, and he was afraid the maestro would really like it and request that he keep playing it.

I'm not surprised to hear that (and I remember you posting this before). His particular Alexander was one of the infamous Alexanders that was a lot of work to play and forced you to constantly battle with intonation. I have played it. Sounded great, but was a lot of work. I have not played enough different Alexanders to know if his was "bad" or "ok," but I know what a great Alexander is like, and his wasn't one, in my opinion. If I had to pick between that Alexander and almost anything else, I would pick that something else. That said, I believe this tuba is owned by a very fine tubist in the Dallas area today that is quite happy with it.

[Rick Denney]

His particular Alexander was one of the infamous Alexanders that was a lot of work to play and forced you to constantly battle with intonation. I have played it. Sounded great, but was a lot of work. I have not played enough different Alexanders to know if his was "bad" or "ok," but I know what a great Alexander is like, and his wasn't one, in my opinion.

I have no basis for rendering an opinion myself, given that I never played it and have zero experience with playing Alexanders in general.

I will note, however, that the general consensus at the time seemed to have been that Mike's Alex was actually rather special as Alexes go. But that's more hearsay. Old Holtons and Alexes probably have both earned reputations for 1.) inconsistency, and 2.) magical properties for the good ones.

Rick "who defends Holton about as vigorously as Tom is defending Alex--'if you find a good one!'" Denney

[Tom]

I have no basis for rendering an opinion myself, given that I never played it and have zero experience with playing Alexanders in general.

Rick "who defends Holton about as vigorously as Tom is defending Alex--'if you find a good one!'" Denney

It sounds to me like it might be time for you to add a nice 163 BBb to your collection

[sailn2ba]

Neptune, I see that you use (have?) a Cerveny 701. I have a 681 be-alike by Amati, and I love it. . . except for the rotary valve noise. I recently got to spend a few days with a Cerveny 601(?), and I was REALLY impressed by the lows (and the highs were just as good as on the smaller horn), but the valves were as noisy as the 681. Are yours noisy? If not, what might be the difference? BobF

[eupher61]

This has evolved enough to bring out the concept even more clearly than I tried to say it earlier--often the right tool just plain makes the job easier.

I have a small BBb because it's easier to hold when standing, which I often do while playing jazz. I sacrifice size of the sound a bit, but not to the point that I'd rather have something else.

I play an F because that's what works best for me in every situation I find myself anymore. If I played more orchestral stuff, I'd have a flexible but medium sized CC, something that can sound big or small.

Focal Dystonia has hit tuba players of all styles, it seems---power players, technique wizards, orchestra, solo...doesn't seem to be a pattern or rhyme or reason that I can find, knowing a few of those involved personally and knowing about more of them second hand.

[Wyvern]

Neptune, I see that you use (have?) a Cerveny 701. I have a 681 be-alike by Amati, and I love it. . . except for the rotary valve noise. I recently got to spend a few days with a Cerveny 601(?), and I was REALLY impressed by the lows (and the highs were just as good as on the smaller horn), but the valves were as noisy as the 681. Are yours noisy? If not, what might be the difference? BobF

Bob, One of the joys of my Cerveny 701 is how good are its rotary valves. Very little noise and the smoothest, fastest valve action of any of my tubas! Yes, better than Melton, or B&S (or even a Miraphone I tried). I have played a few other Cerveny tubas and none have had anywhere near so good valves. The only obvious difference I can see is the 701 has nickel silver valves, instead of the usual brass (as in the 6## models) and I have been told that NS is the very best material for rotary valves.

[peter birch]

I am a professional educator and live by a principle that there is no such thing as a stupid question…

I too am a professional educator and I hear plenty of stupid questions every day from the discipline problems who are not paying attention when you say something and ask you a question that you just finished answering. Do not try to fob off onto the teacher the parent's failure to prepare the child for school...

WR

fortunately for me, I teach adults in our healthcare system, most of whom are highly motivated to learn. I have infinte sympathy and respect for teachers in our schools who face parental indifference and political interference on a daily basis.
Of course I hear stupid questions, usually from qualified people who should know better, but in my work it shows a gap in knowledge that can be plugged.
I am genuinly sorry to hear of your experiences, and for what it's worth (and I know that it's not much in a forum such as this) I do sympathise, my children are almost grown up and nearly out of our education system, and we brought them up to repect their teachers, I hope you meet at least 1 good kid every day.

[Tom]

Regarding the Alex/Holton debate:

I got an Alexander because Mike Sanders' tone got under my skin over the years.

<snip>

I loved the warmth of the sound but still was really jazzed by the power and might (and the sweetness at low dynamics) of that Alex, which was a very good one, by the way. He allowed me to play both horns in his living room during lessons in the Summer of 1985 before I left for Army BT.

Ok, I'll admit that perhaps my "evaluation" and opinion of Mike's particular Alexander might be flat out wrong. I don't have a problem admitting that. I played it for a short while on one occasion years before I had an Alexander of my own, and came into it with no prior Alexander experience. Thinking about it now, it probably is totally unfair to judge a horn (any horn) based on that sort of experience. If I played it today I might have a totally different opinion of it. I have developed as a player a lot in that time and have spent enough time with my own Alexander now to have some basis for comparison that's a whole lot closer to apples to apples.

I would love to have an Alexander round up some day to simply try different ones to see what I think...hmmmm.

[Rick Denney]

It sounds to me like it might be time for you to add a nice 163 BBb to your collection

If one came my way for the right price, and if I liked the way it played, I'd consider it.

Rick "open-minded" Denney

[iiipopes]

If I had my druthers, I'd play my Besson and let everyone else just deal with it. I like to play standard band literature, and that's what the Besson does best.

But the 186 does live up to its "workhorse" reputation, and I know I will never be looked at twice or questioned by anyone showing up with it. And it is very, very close to being a one-horn-does-all.

Having the souzy for outdoors and for a gig in particular where the stage is a theatrical stage with no sound shell is a blessing.

If I played orchestra, I'd go on safari for another instrument or two to add. But I don't play orchestra, and so I don't. If I played tuba professionally, as I have done with guitar and bass guitar, I'd go on safari and write it off. But at this point I don't, and so I don't.

And so for 75% to 90% of what I do, I strap on the 186 in its gig bag and off I go.