The all round British EEb

[termite]

I'll probably get shot down for this but over the last couple of years after listening to a lot of tuba playing I've decided that German F tubas sound a lot more interesting than British EEb's. When I switch from a German BBb to a British BBb I keep my normal sound for a few hours then I start to revert to the British brass band sound. I have a few recordings of British EEb players which are incredible playing but the sound itself seems boring compared to someone like Gene Pokorny. (Runs for cover - sorry but that is a realization that crept up on me over a period of time).

The large belled British EEb is however a very versatile and powerful instrument. I think the often-way-too-high upper Eb line in older British brass band music really only works on the older smaller bell British EEb's. I suspect a few people here may agree with me on that last point.

Regards

Gerard

[iiipopes]

The large belled British EEb is however a very versatile and powerful instrument. I think the often-way-too-high upper Eb line in older British brass band music really only works on the older smaller bell British EEb's. I suspect a few people here may agree with me on that last point.

Yes, I'm one of them. As Klaus pointed out to me, at least the 980 and 983 have 17 inch bells, so there is still something to fit between the euphs & BBb's.

[Wyvern]

I'll probably get shot down for this but over the last couple of years after listening to a lot of tuba playing I've decided that German F tubas sound a lot more interesting than British EEb's.

That is precisely what got me to change to F tuba. I get a thrill out of the sound of my goldbrass PT-15 every time I play it.

A rotary Eb like the MW 2040/5 does provide a more colourful tone than the British EEb, but I still feel their sound does not quite have the magic of a good German F, although getting close (from my comparison playing back to back when I had both).

The large belled British EEb is however a very versatile and powerful instrument.

Very true! There is probably no other tuba which is as versatile to be able to proficiently play anything from quintet, to march band, to brass band, to symphony orchestra

Jonathan "who enjoys playing the PT-15 and Neptune equally"

[peter birch]

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "British" EEb tuba, or a British tuba of any sort for that matter these days, all the professional tubas (sic) are made in Germany or Switzerland and the student models are manufactured in the far east.
the last time I was at a big gathering of brass bands, by far the majority of tubas were Besson EEbs and BBbs, I saw 2 players with WIllsons, and 1 with a mr tuba badge on.

[termite]

By British tuba we mean something with the same basic layout as the Boosey&Hawkes Imperial/Besson Sovereign type instruments. We're not stuck on one model or bell size here, it's a broad concept.
These instruments tend to have a similar feel to them which is quite different to something like a German rotary tuba with it's long leadpipe and long final bugle. (Not all of which are made in Germany).
Where it's made is irrelevant. We're talking about an overall shape and taper.

Regards

Gerard

[peter birch]

what I think might be relevant though is where the player comes from, the sound made on a tuba might well differ from place to place depending on things like the availability of instruments, they way young players are taught amongst other things. I wonder if an American player will sound like an American whether he plays a "British" EEb a German F or an American C tuba. after all a tuba is just a metal tube until someone picks it up and blows it.
I also wonder if, as Gerard says, the conept of the "british" tuba is a broad one, might it be so broad as to be actually meaningless?
I know Jonathan plays a variety of tubas, do you sound any more or less british on any of them?

Peter

[Wyvern]

I know Jonathan plays a variety of tubas, do you sound any more or less british on any of them?

Soon after I got a rotary 2040/5 Eb I recorded a concert and sent to a friend. His comment was that I still sounded like principal Eb bass in a brass band despite the rotary tuba.

A couple of years ago I went to a concert where Andy Cresci of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra was playing a solo on his Neptune 6/4 CC. To my ears he made it sound like a British EEb with Turbo drive - he still retained that distinctive "British brass band sound".

Yes, the instrument does change the tone, but I believe ones style of playing (be that British, German, or American) stays much the same regardless of the tuba being played.

[termite]

I wonder if an American player will sound like an American whether he plays a "British" EEb a German F or an American C tuba.

It has been said many times in these forums that the sound in a players head is a major factor so probably yes.

I think I've only ever heard British tubas played by either British players or Australian players brought up in the British brass band tradition with the British brass band sound firmly in their heads.
Recently I've been wondering what a Boosey&Hawkes Imperial BBb or an EEb Sovereign would sound like played by an American player.

I have heard American euphonium playing and it sounds like a different instrument to what I'm used to hearing - a much more straight through the middle of the horn style of playing and sounding more horn and trombone like than British euphonium players.

iiipopes - do you sound the same on your Besson as you do on your 186?
Do you find yourself responding differently to the two instruments and subtly changing the way you blow as a result?

Regards

Gerard

[cambrook]

Check out Rex Martin's excellent "Live in Japan" CD to hear what an American player sounds like on a Besson Eb.

Cheers

Cam

[iiipopes]

iiipopes - do you sound the same on your Besson as you do on your 186?
Do you find yourself responding differently to the two instruments and subtly changing the way you blow as a result?

In a word: no, yes. First, the Besson (remember, I have the 3-valve comp, not the 4-valve): with the Wick 1 I get the big, deep British "ah" vowel sound (as in father) that is the British tuba sound, if there is one to be defined. Articulation and response are prompt, and I do find with the large throat and deep funnel that I need more air as I go down. By contrast, with the Kanstul custom, even though it is based on a Bach 18, it has a deeper cup than the Bach, it is slightly larger than Bach "spec," being in my preferred 1.28 cup diameter, but a smaller throat (@.328) as opposed to the larger Bach 18 standard. This produces, for lack of a better phrase, "Our American Cousin" tone out of the horn, with a brighter tone, more like the American pronunciation of "Dad," but not harsh. Same response, same intonation, but because of the more cupped geometry and slightly smaller throat, breath is more controlled on the bottom. With both of these mouthpieces, there is more overtone development with the overall geometry and bugle of the Besson, so I can play it in small or large spaces as I will, with the Wick 1 favouring larger spaces, and the Kanstul favouring smaller rehearsal rooms and halls.

On to the Miraphone: with the recording bell and the Kanstul custom mouthpiece, I get as "American" tone as it gets due to the wide flare 22 inch bell: a lot of breadth, depth and overtones -- you know, "Gimme a C - a bouncy C...." So I just play it. A good march, an early evening outdoor concert, and I'm in hog heaven. With the upright St Pete bell, large throat/small flare 16 1/2 inch, it is dark, pervasive, and almost ominously present with the Curry 128D. The Curry is a "hybrid" cup, so it gives depth, breadth, but doesn't lose definition in its lowest register. It was recommended to me by Matt @ Dillon Music, for both consistency of tone from register to register and aid in managing breath support, and he knows his stuff. I had first tried a Wick 1L, and I ended up needing a third lung to play low register stuff. With the darkness of tone, I find that I set up technical passages differently: I approach them in a slightly lighter fashion, knowing that if I push, they will lose clarity. Moreover, I don't need to automatically "drop the octave" as a lot of community band tuba players are want to do, just to get more heft or depth on a cadence. I can pick and choose exactly when I want that true, near-pedal, sub-contra effect, since the tuba has all of the tone to begin with. But to be at its best, the upright bell really needs a large hall so the fundamentals can really develop properly; it's really hard to get pedal BBb out of it otherwise, if at all; and the recording bell is best outdoors, which is not surprising, since its geometry approaches that of a sousaphone.

Finally, fingerings. I am very, very lucky on both horns. The only note that is really out on the 186 is mid line D, needing 1+2 instead of open. Db 2 is lippable, and everything else is pretty much right on, or the slot is wide enough that you set and blow. Low B nat & E 2+4 need to be lipped slightly, Eb is 1+2+4, brought up to tune simply by raising the back of the tongue slightly to increase air velocity. On the Besson I have my version of "the dent" that F tuba players use to get 2nd line C: right after I got it, it had a bad dent in the knuckle between valve #1 & #2. So I had it fixed. Intonation on the D immediately dropped from perfect to quarter step flat. So I carefully took a ball peen hammer and reintroduced the dent little by little until I got the pitch up without impeding air flow. Now not only are the 5th partials in tune, but the 7th partials, G and Gb, can be played 2nd alone and 1st alone, respectively, in perfect tune. The tradeoff: nothing below bottom E nat 1+2+3. I don't know if its the log taper of the bell, or the comp block interfering with nodes, but there is nothing there. Of course, for community band, it's not ever needed, anyway.

So yes, there are differences. If I had other horns, there would be differences on them as well. Anybody who says there are no discernable differences needs to work on their awareness and technique. The goal is to be like Bill Bell who could assimilate all these differences immediately and get the quality necessary to support the gig right then and there, even if it was the first time playing the particular horn/mouthpiece combination.

Rick Denney has a great page on his website with scope traces of how his different tubas have different tonal characteristics. My 186 with the recording bell and Kanstul mouthpiece approaches his York Master in the style of trace, and my 186 is even "darker" with its different bell than his is.

[termite]

Hmmm.

iiipopes - which tuba takes more air, the Besson or the 186? I feel like my Boosey&Hawkes Imperial takes more air than my 1291BBb and gives back a lot less sound. I use a PT48+ on both. (The Imperial has a larger reciever fitted).

Regards

Gerard

[Bob Kolada]

Who wants to play "count the commas"...


Is there a good recording of a 15" bell British Eb online?

[termite]

If God didn't want us to use commas He wouldn't have put it on the keyboard!

I'm guessing here but I suspect to find a recording of the 15" bell you would have to find one from the days when that instrument was the latest and best available. Anything you find will probably be an English recording of a solo with brass band accompaniment.

Try looking on Youtube for old recordings or the Black Dyke band and others. I think there might be a few there where the visual is just a still of the record cover or a picture of an old gramophone. If any of these feature a tuba solo then that is probably the instrument being used.

It will probably be an air and variation piece with nothing longer than a demi-semi-quaver (32nd. note) so you may not be able to hear the instrument that much. Also brass band players in those days had a very different approach to the tuba compared to a modern orchestral player so it may not tell you what you want to know.

I might have a look and see what I can find.

Regards

Gerard

[AndyCat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQVNiNKi52o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_xJ-wRQtRM

[AndyCat]

There are also plenty of videos on Youtube of Grimethorpe Band in 1972 winning "Band of the Year" with an almost full set of Imperials.

[iiipopes]

iiipopes - which tuba takes more air, the Besson or the 186? I feel like my Boosey&Hawkes Imperial takes more air than my 1291BBb and gives back a lot less sound. I use a PT48+ on both. (The Imperial has a larger reciever fitted).

They both take about the same amount of air. Sorry, but I gotta rant. The bore or profile of the horn makes absolutely no difference as to how much air an instrument takes. I've played an incredibly wide range of horns, and, to oversimplify, "they all take about the same amount of air." Here's why: brass instruments do NOT function on "flow theory." They function on static wave theory: nodes, antinodes, compressions, rarefactions, all set up by the vibration of the embouchure. What we call pitch is simply the physical resonance, or overtone resonance, of the horn. The only aspect of the instrument that functions on "flow theory," or Bernoulli's Principle, is the driving of the air across the embouchure to get it to vibrate, which the vibrations are then modified by the cup geometry and throat, and to a lesser extent the backbore, the only purpose of which is to set up the compressions and rarefactions cycle to get the horn to resonate. By the time it gets down the leadpipe, with the expansion of the leadpipe, there is effectively no more than the slightest residual flow. Look at a river delta: once a river opens up to the larger body of water, anything carried along is dropped out as velocity decreases to effectively zero. Same thing with the breath in a brass instrument, especially tuba.

There was a famous, albeit misguided, "experiment" years ago about how flow affects a tuba, with smoke being introduced into the tuba, then the tuba was played and timed to see how long it took the smoke to start coming out the bell. It was a long time, and only a whisp at a time from the residual airflow necessary from actually blowing the horn.

Another analogy: watch a bobber or buoy on a pond, lake or ocean. As the waves traverse, the bobber or buoy does not. It simply goes up and down, with only the slightest drift from the wind directly pushing on it, which caused the waves in the first place.

Please re-read my post as I talk about how much difference the mouthpieces make in the amount of air required.

Now, if you have a particularly efficient instrument, it will seem to take less air. I played a souzy that looked like it would need more air than any single person could give, but it was so efficient it could carry an entire band by itself. By contrast, what most people perceive as "stuffiness" has nothing to do with how the air flows through the instrument, but the relative inefficiency of the instrument at resonating those particular notes, which includes mechanical impedance of or interference with nodes or antinodes at critical points. So a person feels more effort is required to get the same response out of those notes, hence the subjective conclusion of "stuffy." Because of the return trip through the block and the many angle changes in the path that can affect nodes or antinodes, comp tubas are particularly prone to having "stuffy" notes.

[b.williams]

Why does my brain hurt after reading iiipopes posts?

[Donn]

iiipopes - which tuba takes more air, the Besson or the 186? I feel like my Boosey&Hawkes Imperial takes more air than my 1291BBb and gives back a lot less sound. I use a PT48+ on both. (The Imperial has a larger reciever fitted).

They both take about the same amount of air.

Since I regularly read reports of one tuba or another that takes more air, from players who ought to be pretty good and also present themselves as pretty thoughtful individuals here, I'm guessing that either 1) "about" the same leaves a lot of room for variation, 2) we aren't all talking about the same thing, or 3) we aren't playing the same tubas.

For all the static wave theory, don't forget that you do have to expel air though the tuba, and kind of a lot of it compared to a smaller brass instrument.

The tubas? You can find at least one report that a Miraphone 1291 takes more air than average. I wouldn't have guessed that termite's Imperial would take even more, but I wonder if here we're talking about the efficiency of the respective tubas. His 1291 in good condition, doesn't make him work so hard as the Imperial ... maybe a leak or two? valve alignment? Or maybe it is a characteristic of the instrument, as for example one reads consistently about the larger Rudolph Meinls.

What is it - "more air"? Termite, can you play a note longer, at the same volume, on the 1291, or is this more about perceived effort, need for more rigorous breath support, something like that?

[sloan]

Why does my brain hurt after reading iiipopes posts?

Daily (mental) exercise can help.

[sloan]

For all the static wave theory, don't forget that you do have to expel air though the tuba, and kind of a lot of it compared to a smaller brass instrument.

Why?