I've wondered about the solos of John Fletcher. No doubt he has absolutely incredible technical proficiency, but it seems to me that he's not playing particularly loudly or 'powerfully.' I'm saying this having no idea what a tuba sound is supposed to be like. (I am mainly a euph player)
I'm not doubting his skill at all, I'm just wondering if it's a result of the possible stuffiness caused by the compensating system? Is that high range for an EEb tuba? Is it possible to play as 'powerfully' (loudly?) on a compensating EEb as on this: CC? (tuba ignorant ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CV3aNW5IM" target="_blank
I own two compensated Eb tubas and the stuffyness you refer too is for me only apparent in the pedal register for everything is fine until pedal F and F# and E. From Eb down its fine again.
My high range is not much above F above the staff and for me I struggle to play above middle C quietly once I go above middle C I become very strident. This is a failure of my playing rather than the instrument.
In the two videos you linked my only observation is that despite the copy of a copy quality you can still hear the soloist over the accompanying full sized brass band and it matches blends with what the band are doing.
Could he have peeled the paint of the walls with his Eb if he wanted too? Probably but that would not have suited the piece from memory I think most of the solo is mf loudest point is a forte.
Of the two I prefer the tuba sound in the Fletcher video for that piece it seem to suit it better.
I listened to some of his solos again with headphones that have a decent bass, and what a difference! It was my poor headphones, not the master's sound!
Mr. Fletcher visited BGSU with the Philip Jones Brass in 1984. The subject of volume creep was dear to Mr. Jones. Jones told me orchestras were getting louder every time the conductors heard playbacks in recording studio control rooms with giant monitors.
Mr. Fletcher was not the most flamboyant performer I ever saw, but he came in with a big reputation and he confirmed every bit of it. He was as loud as one might expect, I think.
bloke wrote:In general, many newly-offered-to-the-market-as-top-drawer instruments (of all types) seem to be under design transformations towards "sheer volume" to the detriment of some other playing characteristics.
Such instruments are very seductive, and are either rejected or "managed" by enlightened professionals. Typically, such ultra-resonant instruments challenge their players at the lowest volume levels.
This seems to be the hot question about horns these days. Hot button words like "alive" and "resonant" and "quick response" are the markers. We seem to be looking more and more for a horn that can produce sheer volume of sound but also responds with a feather touch. I don't know if that is possible to achieve but I've played a few tubas that come pretty close. Ultimately, this might be yet another way for prospective employers to distinguish between players. A player that can't cover the soft stuff as well as the loud stuff may have the wrong priorities when it comes to instrument selection and overall sensibilities. Since winning an audition results in hiring a player (and everything he/she brings to the table), perhaps evaluating everything the player shows can give more clues about what you can expect from them.
We all have seen the "arms race" in full swing for a very long time now. And we've all seen some players end their careers prematurely. I wonder how much of that is connected. We all have our opinions about that but I think only a fool doesn't pay attention to what's happening around them or be careful not to fall into an ever widening trap.
My opinion for what it's worth...
Principal Tuba - Miami Symphony, Kravis Pops
Tuba/Euphonium Instructor - Florida International University,
Broward College, Miami Summer Music Festival
I agree with bloke. It also corresponds to more valves to get more range, not just as intonation aids, and larger bores. The average tenor trombone bore is almost a forth again larger in diameter than it was a century ago, and likewise cornet bores are significantly larger, and to a lesser extent, trumpets.
iiipopes wrote:I agree with bloke. It also corresponds to more valves to get more range, not just as intonation aids, and larger bores. The average tenor trombone bore is almost a forth again larger in diameter than it was a century ago, and likewise cornet bores are significantly larger, and to a lesser extent, trumpets.
+ 1
The "English" orchestral sound of Fletcher's period was much more contained than orchestras today.
Everyone was using smaller bore horns, and the "Barlow" tubas that he used were no exception.
Fletcher was a consummate musician, and I have no doubt that he would sound just as good with different equipment, were he to have used it.
Instead of talking to your plants, if you yelled at them would they still grow, but only to be troubled and insecure?
) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CV3aNW5IM" target="_blank
