The Joy of BAT

[mbell]

Okay, the term BAT has acquired a narrow definition like any other jargon.

It did not originally apply only to American-style grand orchestral tubas. The first time I saw it was when Tony Clements was defining the quarter system. The smallest category (I don't remember how many quarters it was) was defined as, "Is that a euphonium?"

And the largest (6/4) was defined as: "That's a big-*** tuba!"

I've tried to find that post in the old Tubenet archives, but have failed.

Rick "always dignified" Denney

The FAQ for the TubaEuph mail list includes this:
"List member Tony Clements suggests the following scale:
3/4 - Is that a euphonium?
4/4 - Regular tuba
5/4 - WOW! That's a big tuba.
6/4 - B.A.T. "
------------------

When Mark listed the Cerveny Kaiser I eventually bought from him, he described it as a BART, big a$$ rotary tuba.

mike

[Rick Denney]

The FAQ for the TubaEuph mail list includes this:
"List member Tony Clements suggests the following scale:
3/4 - Is that a euphonium?
4/4 - Regular tuba
5/4 - WOW! That's a big tuba.
6/4 - B.A.T. "

I wonder if that is a recollection.

I don't think it was in a TubaEuph message where Tony first wrote that, but I can't find it in the Tubenet archives going back as far as they go (using a Google search and not the flawed forum search), which is before I joined Tubenet. I have TubaEuph emails going back to 2001 (the last time I corrupted my email database irreparably) and I know that's too late--I see references to this taxonomy (written by me) as early as 1999. So, maybe Tony wrote it in an email to TubaEuph before that time.

Steve ought to remember, or I'll have to bug Web or McIntyre, neither of whom are really active here near as I can tell.

But no matter--its initial use was related to size, and I think got attached to the American grand orchestral tuba by virtue of the 6/4 designation, which at that time (excepting only the big Rudi which was not widely known) was only applied to fat, side-action piston tubas of the York type. Even the Miraphone 190 was listed as a 5/4.

"Big American Tuba" doesn't really do it for me. There is no tuba of that design currently on the market that is made in America. And "Big American-Style Tuba" just doesn't have a ring to it.

I had hoped to draw out Wade, who has argued eloquently that BAT can only apply to the grand orchestral type, and we need a good argument over stuff that is utterly unimportant without having to depend on Joe to provoke it.

Rick "who would favor 'Big Elephantine American-Style Tuba', however" Denney

[gwwilk]

Rick "who would favor 'Big Elephantine American-Style Tuba', however" Denney

It has a nice acronym, Rick, but the Redundancy Committee might cite it as a pure example.

A BAT is a Big A$$ Tuba. In solipsistic terms, that means whatever I think it means. However, in reality it may mean very little. If I wanted to perpetuate this silliness, I could even argue that over the years as the average height and weight of humans changes the definition would also need to change in order to accommodate the instruments' now altered relative sizes. That's what happens when we try to stamp perpetual meanings on words; they slip right out from beneath us and become something else. Someone calls a tuba a 'BAT', someone else says 'BAT, my a$$', and away we go on a meaningless trip to nowhere.

Back on topic, I love the sound of my RM Bayreuth. Huge sound, yet it can whisper when asked. It will cut through an 85 piece band at fortissimo like a knife through butter despite the presence of 4 other tubas, or it can pretty much hide beneath the ensemble. Is it a BAT? I don't have the slightest idea, nor could I care. Does it require special handling through alternate fingerings? Sure, they are needed on certain pitches throughout its range, but using them well is part of the fun of 'driving' it.

[Rick Denney]

Yes, the 20J, 21J, 24J, and 25J are all top-action, but what about the 22J, 23J, 26J, and 27J which are all front-action?

Those were short-action versions of the 36J, though the 36J model that I'm thinking of was pitched in C (as recalled dimly from Donald Stauffer's description) and none of the 2xJ series was. Of course, "36J" was applied to various instruments, but I'm thinking of the model similar to what Stauffer pictured.

Rick "who doesn't have that book--or the old Conn catalog--hand at the moment" Denney

[Michael Bush]

or the old Conn catalog

I wonder how much the catalog would help. Maybe by the time of these instruments things had stabilized. My 1913 OGB looks nothing (in the cylindrical tubing) like the one in the 1913 catalog.

[GC]

There are plenty of 20J and 24J instruments around. Fewer of the 21J and 25J. There are very, very few of the front-valve models around. But they'd still be big-a$$ed,and I'd love to have one.

I guess my monster Eb would be a BAET.

[eupher61]

According to the TubaEuph FAQ, it was Tony Clements who coined BAT, and it was in a post on TubaEuph. But, Michael Grogg somehow had some part in it, because I gave him some semblance of credit in a post a few years ago. I can't find specific posts, probably because Tony's idea came before that list ended up back at Yahell.

[Wyvern]

The rotary Neptune should still be considered a BAT even if it does look rather Kaiser like in appearance, as its sound is without doubt that of a American BAT which I would say is distinct from a Kaiser. A BAT has a broad enveloping tone, while a Kaiser is more direct.

I last week heard a Neptune unusually being played in British brass band (on BBb bass part) and how that rich enveloping sound dominated the bass tone from out front. I honestly could not really hear the other three tubas, although sitting in the ensemble the Neptune did not seem particularly loud. That seems to be a special characteristic of BATs - project and envelope the audience without being loud.

The Conn 2xJ most certainly has that BAT enveloping characteristic if top, or front action, so should also be considered a BAT.

[UDELBR]

The lack of "burn" in the sound of typical BAT tubas at very loud dynamic levels

It's that lack of 'burn' in 6/4 tubas (in general), less than really aggressive 6/4 players, and modern American orchestral brass playing in general that I find so BORING.

Terribly boring.

BATs can certainly be played that 'brassy' way though; I need only point to Deck & Pokorny's playing (although you rue players' admiration of them in another topic...). Their timbres run the gamut from subtone bass clarinet woodiness to tin foil french horn brassiness.

That's the mark of incredible players though: having all the colors to play with.

[UDELBR]

Also agreed. Perhaps we should limit BAT's to incredible players and keep them out of the hands of pusillanimous mortals.

Well, a player's lack of willingness to "own all the colors" on a BAT would doubtless be evident in their playing on smaller instruments as well, right?

[Rick Denney]

Also agreed. Perhaps we should limit BAT's to incredible players and keep them out of the hands of pusillanimous mortals.

That would certainly be true for Alexanders. Except I think you're stretching with "pusillanimous". I don't think pusillanimity has anything to do with it. I think a good embouchure, air supply, and tone concept are what one needs. And, to be sure, I can get plenty of edge from my Holton, so it clearly does not require being incredible. Or incredibly good, anyway.

Many pros stopped playing Alexanders because they required too much work. That is rather at odds with your notion.

Rick "is pusillanimity boring?" Denney

[daveinem]

We are in the some rarified air here!

[toobagrowl]

BATs can certainly be played that 'brassy' way though; I need only point to Deck & Pokorny's playing (although you rue players' admiration of them in another topic...). Their timbres run the gamut from subtone bass clarinet woodiness to tin foil french horn brassiness.

That's the mark of incredible players though: having all the colors to play with.

I dunno if I'd call that 'brassy'; I'd just call it 'bity' or 'edgy'. I sort of think of tubas in the same way as French horns with their conical, round sound. Lets say you take a horn player with a Conn 8D and a tuba player with a YamaYork and they both always play round and mellow (with little/no bite in their sound), their sound will be VERY woofy/muddy/lacking in color out in the audience - even fairly up close. But if you have strong players on those instruments who know how to put some 'sizzle' into the sound (bite/edge) and keep the sound full and rich, it sounds GREAT out in the audience - the sound 'livens up' and becomes more complex/colorful.

[MartyNeilan]

Please discuss.

What prompted me to post this was I had just played the first rehearsal of Borodin's Polovtsian Dances. Seated next to a guest bass trombone player with a b-i-g, phat sound (no chainsaw.) I cannot think of a better instrument for such a piece than a true contrabass BAT or BART. The performance was last night, and the big horn was definitely a perfect fit.
The opener was Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man. The BAT worked perfectly on that piece, but it is one of those that could work equally well with a 4/4 or a 6/4 - it all depends on what color you want to paint with. (I can't stand how many tuba players clam the higher F in the opening F-Bb-F of the tuba part, but that is another story. My guess is that they are trying to hear a Do-Sol-Do in their heads instead of a Do-Fa-Do and get thrown off) I didn't play on the other Copland featured, and Herr Beethoven was kind enough to give me the rest of the night off.

I was/am seriously considering a 4/4-ish tuba of some sort to better fit my uses (church orchestra, college/community orchestra, teaching lessons, occasional quintets, random misc gigs.) On paper, a 4/4 just seems a better fit. However, there is something about the SOUND of a big tuba. Like they say in engine building, There's no replacement for displacement.

[itai]

The rotary Neptune should still be considered a BAT even if it does look rather Kaiser like in appearance, as its sound is without doubt that of a American BAT which I would say is distinct from a Kaiser. A BAT has a broad enveloping tone, while a Kaiser is more direct.

I used to own a Neptune for 3 years+ until a recent upgrade (?) IMO to a Nirschl York, and if the York copy is classified as the typical "BAT", then I can say for sure that the Neptune is not even close to that specification.

The Neptune has a unique sound, truly like no other large tuba. It has some of the BAT broadness, and has its aggression. I wouldn't classify it as a "BAT-Kaiser" but I really have no way to describe this tuba's sound.

As mentioned earlier, the BAT has an easier pianissimo than other contrabass tubas. I recall myself playing in my quintet with the Neptune, back then when it was my only tuba, and I remember many "pffff air-only" embarrassing moments, this tuba was so hard to blow at some situations that never happen with my York. Today I can take the York to a quintet gig and sleep the night before peacefully.

The Neptune was my first owned tuba, and the first CC I ever played. My teacher kept telling it was a big mistake to buy it at the first place, not because it is a bad instrument, but because of the air it requires to play. The Nirschl York does not require less air to get the same results, but now I understand how the amount of air, let me correct myself, air flow affects the color you want to get out of your tuba. BAT's are MUCH more friendly (not easy!) to blow and create the tone you want to achieve for the certain need (and this was tested for a long month next to a pt6).

I could "burn" or "brass-up" the tone much more easily on the Neptune, I'm not even talking about the pt6.

[Allen]

I used to own a Neptune for 3 years+...

Itai, that large amount of air that you say the Neptune needed may have been due to using a large mouthpiece.

I find that my Neptune doesn't need more air than other tubas, while creating a huge sound. I use a medium-size mouthpiece (a Stofer Geib). If I use a big mouthpiece such as a G&W Bayamo, the Neptune takes much more air, although in return gives even more sound in the low range.

I love my Neptune, but I do use a smaller instrument when I play in a quintet -- mainly because it is more nimble, and less work to get a lighter sound.

Allen

[Wyvern]

Itai, My guess is you were playing the Neptune with the larger of the two leadpipes supplied. That makes it rather Kaiser like, while the narrow bore pipe is more BAT like in feel/tone.

I have no trouble playing the Neptune quietly and have in the past used successfully with brass quintet.

[Jess Haney]

I love my willson 3100 for many reasons. especially the dark sound it has when you really need it. It is heavy as sin and the metal is thick which does not allow you to bend its sound quite as easily as a BAT of lighter construction. But when you need big sound for prokofiev 5 or night on bald mountain it flies out of the bell and with the right mouthpeice you can give it a little more juice without separating the tone.

[TUbajohn20J]

Yup I love my Willson as well. But my favorite BAT is....Conn 20J

[Jess Haney]

Yup I love my Willson as well. But my favorite BAT is....Conn 20J

I will meet your 20j and raise you a 1939 Conn 36j....that horn is awe inspiring.