American Tubists & British Style EEb tubas

[eupho]

I wondering who in the US plays a British style 3+1. I realize many may use them in brass bands but how about in other settings? Why is the set-up the norm in Britain but not elsewhere?

[hbcrandy]

I used a Fletcher model Eb tuba as my bass tuba for quite a few years. I ranther liked the 3 + 1 valve configuration in that my little finger on my right had is my weakest and most uncoordinated. The sound was real good, also.

[thezman]

Kenneth Amis plays a 3+1 with the Empire Brass, a chamber group.

Different places developed affinities for different valve combinations and types.

The truth is its whatever works for you.

[Jess Haney]

I used a 981 for a long time in a brass ensemble. It was great. I also use my brass bands 981 in lessons because it has a great sound and I can move on it just as efficiently as my Willson 3400. They really are good tubas. In duets the 981 matches my student's yamaha 321 tone to a great degree.

[Wyvern]

I think it is all a matter of the culture in different countries which is amazingly diverse in the case of tubas (something to celebrate!)

The dominance of the 3+1 piston EEb tuba in the UK (and Australia too) is no doubt due to most players starting in brass bands where that is the traditional style bass.

Why it is not used more in US, I cannot say - other than maybe the influence of German tuba playing in the states. I like playing rotary tubas and CC myself also, but still think the 3+1 EEb is the most universally adaptable tuba (can be used to play anything). The left hand operated 4th valve makes moving around in the low register, no more difficult than on a BBb. Once accustomed, it is a very sensible valve layout.

[ghmerrill]

Why it is not used more in US, I cannot say - other than maybe the influence of German tuba playing in the states. I like playing rotary tubas and CC myself also, but still think the 3+1 EEb is the most universally adaptable tuba (can be used to play anything). The left hand operated 4th valve makes moving around in the low register, no more difficult than on a BBb. Once accustomed, it is a very sensible valve layout.

One reason may be economics. Surely, just in terms of material and construction, it is more difficult to make a 4-valve compensating instrument than a 4-valve non-compensating instrument. Another issue might be the difference in weight. And part of it may be the classic engineering NIH ("not invented here") phenomenon. If this is coupled with habit and how you've been trained, there are strong forces at work. Just try to get an orthopaedic surgeon to implant a different brand of artifical joint than what he was trained on and has been using for years . But that's all speculation. And of course the Brit compensating horns do sound different. It's interesting that the use of the compensating EEb is so widespread compared to the compensating BBb. But there I would guess a major factor is weight.

In terms of being a "sensible valve layout", I find it to be much more than "sensible". For my own part, I doubt that I would ever go back to a 4-in-line layout. The 3+1 is just MUCH easier for me to play (after an initial and fairly short adjustment period).

[Wyvern]

It's interesting that the use of the compensating EEb is so widespread compared to the compensating BBb. But there I would guess a major factor is weight.

I think the lack of use of the compensating 3+1 BBb is that the Besson design is basically an inferior playing contrabass tuba than American, or German BBb tubas and their extra bulk over the EEb makes them an ergonomic nightmare - at least in my opinion

I wonder if tubas configured more like the old Boosey Cavalry tubas of 100 years ago with 3 front valves and the 4th on the side left hand operated would be more appeal? I personally would like that layout with the comfort of front valves and the flexibility of left hand operated 4th. However British brass bands are so traditional they would never change to tuba facing the 'wrong way'

[ghmerrill]

I think the lack of use of the compensating 3+1 BBb is that the Besson design is basically an inferior playing contrabass tuba than American, or German BBb tubas and their extra bulk over the EEb makes them an ergonomic nightmare - at least in my opinion

Yeah, the same occurred to me. Whatever the benefits of the compensating system are, I don't think any incremental improvement it adds compared to non-comp contrabass tubas is worth the trade-offs. And in addition ...

I wonder if tubas configured more like the old Boosey Cavalry tubas of 100 years ago with 3 front valves and the 4th on the side left hand operated would be more appeal? I personally would like that layout with the comfort of front valves and the flexibility of left hand operated 4th. However British brass bands are so traditional they would never change to tuba facing the 'wrong way'

I think this would require changing which side of the road you drive on as well. Moreover, there is a huge and well-entrenched "slide pulling culture" that is not well supported by a tuba in which you need to have the left hand available for a valve. A "non-compensating 3+1 (in whichever orientation) + effective main slide trigger" might be an interesting approach -- but surely with a very limited market.

[bigboymusic]

Rex Martin! I have heard him many times with his Besson. What a perfect match.....

[eupho]

This turned out to be a very worthwhile topic. Thanks to all contributors. Are there compensating euphonium players who chose the compensating British-style EEb tubas for the ergonomics?

[Chadtuba]

I keep debating selling my 983 front action for a British style EEb. I'm not sure if I'll do it or not, but it has been in the back of my mind for quite some time. I love how the ergonomics feel with my Besson euphonium so that is what has my brain swimming n that direction. I really need to get my hands one one first and spend some time with it before I make my decision though.

[bort]

I wondering who in the US plays a British style 3+1. I realize many may use them in brass bands but how about in other settings? Why is the set-up the norm in Britain but not elsewhere?

Not really a "reason," but a bit related... If you have a section of half front-action tubas and half top-action tubas, the bells face in different directions -- it looks a little funny and seating arrangements are a bit more difficult. I once heard someone joke that American/British tubas were like driving in the US/UK -- we both think each other goes the "wrong way," and you can't mix it together and expect it to go well.

I wonder too, do UK symphony players with top-action tubas sit to the right or the left of the trombones?

Again, that's just the physical/visual aspect of it, no knock on sound or anything else.

[eupho]

I have considered that as well. I have played a 982 and it was like a giant euphonium. I am just not convinced of the British EEb timbre in a quintet. Amis uses one with Boston Brass and it just doesn't sound like it fits with the other players. Deanna Swoboda with Dallas plays a MW that just anchors the ensemble. Their video credits say they play Accent instruments but hers says Meinl Weston in big letters. Having played BBb, CC, EEb and F in quintet I think EEb fits the tuba scoring the best. I haven't had the chance to try a MW 2141/2040, Miraphone 283/383 or BMB 345. Actually my MW 751S makes an outstanding bottom voice for quintet and really locks into the upper voices. That's a whole other discussion.

[Wyvern]

I wonder too, do UK symphony players with top-action tubas sit to the right or the left of the trombones?

The tuba in British orchestra sits to right (from audience viewpoint) of trombones, exactly the same as American orchestras.

Personally I have played a lot in band with both front and top action tubas. No problem as long as seated with bells pointing out and not towards each other. In fact can be better if need to share a part, as then easy with no-one looking around bell.

From pictures I have seen, both the UK and US military at one time used tubas facing both ways in band together. In the UK such front action tubas were called cavalry tubas.

[ghmerrill]

I thought that I would never make the change to a 3+1 Brit style tuba, partly because I had been uncomfortable with my earlier top-action Yamaha 321S (4 in line), and was convinced that the front-action was just more "natural". I think I also felt that the top-action horns were "old fashioned" . I only switched a couple of years after getting my 3+1 euphonium. The big surprise was that I found the 3+1 tuba much more comfortable for me to hold (particularly with the sit-on tuba stand I use), and it completely eliminated pain from my shoulder arthritis. Playing for a couple of hours went from a kind of teeth-gritting arm-wrestling experience (as rehearsal or performance time progressed) to an enjoyable musical experience. And I can play my old 3-valve horn standing up without a strap and with no trouble at all -- something I don't think I could do with a front-action horn even of the same size/weight. I also find that the decoupling of the fourth valve from the right hand to the left hand (eliminating all those annoying connective tissue issues with the little finger on the right hand) makes valve combinations MUCH easier, at least for me.

[Richard Perry]

Joe Murphy played a 3 + 1 EEb for years with the Modern Jazz Tuba Project:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZwZJONDPqE" target="_blank" target="_blank

[J.c. Sherman]

I've played a Boosey & Hawkes/Besson Imperial 3+1 Eb since 1987. It was my first tuba. My First teacher, Ron Munson, was very supportive, and with the exception of one 1/2-wit youth symphony conductor who thought it was a "band tuba", it has never been a liability... only an asset.

It's taken me everywhere. It's the horn I bring when I don't know what I'm facing. It can play anything... No exaggeration. I can play the Ride; I can play Corsair. And the 3+1 system, as most euphers know, is far more dexterous. It's all primary fingers. It's my Clarke/Arban horn almost without exception. And as a quintet horn I can be agile... and lay waste if I choose.

I'm always befuddled at how rare they are in the states. And I do find it odd that no one has worked on improvements... really ever. But, it's awfully good already

I use a Jacobs/CB on mine most of the time, with a Miraphone C4 when I play as a soloist.

Those of us who play them know why As for the large-bell brethren, I don't like them as much. They seem a trifle quieter and duller. But they have served well in a pinch.

[Pat S]

This turned out to be a very worthwhile topic. Thanks to all contributors. Are there compensating euphonium players who chose the compensating British-style EEb tubas for the ergonomics?

As a Besson euph player I gave serious thought to seeking out a 3+1 tuba. Just couldn't find one I could afford at the time.

[ghmerrill]

As a Besson euph player I gave serious thought to seeking out a 3+1 tuba. Just couldn't find one I could afford at the time.

Exactly why I didn't acquire one in 1992 (and went the BBb route at that point), but did in 2013.

[Eflatdoubler]

I love a 3+1 system on euphonium (both compensating and non-compensating).

My PT22p is awesome in every way except for that the valve spacing is huge! The only 3+1 horn I tried was a Yamaha E flat, which just wasn't the sound I was after. Ergonomically it was great. I too am amazed at how so many people dislike the interaction of both hands. I certainly understand if the pitch is bad- I would want access to my first valve slide. It is funny how so many people don't mind a lot more thinking for exactly where to put that first valve slide, but are so against letting an index finger go up or down...

If my horn were available in a 3+1 I would check it out, but sound and pitch would be my ultimate decision maker. The only thing I do not like about the compensating system is the length of the valve stroke.