Are BBb tubas just better ?

[Rick Denney]

Random comments...

I'm not so sure I agree that Bb tubas actually do benefit from all the additional R&D, or that they actually do receive more R&D. I don't get the sense that instrument manufacturers worried that much about perfect intonation with instruments they sold to schools or school-age children, or offending school buyers. I have played many student instruments that should never have been perpetrated on innocent children.

Granted, they may benefit from the lessons learned making crappy Bb tubas that have since lapsed into well-earned obscurity. Or, maybe it's natural selection--when they luck into a good instrument, it's popular and they keep making it, while their dogs are not allowed to have offspring. And I do think school instruments are cost-engineered--where can we dispense with a brace, how to arrange these tubes so that our machines will make the parts easily and quickly, how can we share parts and materials with other instruments in the line, etc.

When York made the famous Chicago Symphony instrument on special order, they were surely modifying existing Bb parts in doing so. And they were modifying the parts used to make instruments preferred by professional band players to make that woofy sound they are accused of making. Did they just get lucky? Perhaps. Is the scale on that instrument really wonky compared to the Bb Monster Bass whose parts it used? Not so sure--I've played a few Bb Monster Bass tubas that seemed rather wonky to me. Was it the time Pop Johnson made sure was devoted to that bespoke instrument for the Philadelphia Orchestra that made the difference? I'd put my money on that one.

There have been a lot of F tubas made by US manufacturers over the decades, all of which seemed to be shortened versions of Eb tubas they were already making (or had made). The examples that I've played can be evil, and I wonder if they didn't get the sort of time that Johnson put into the Chicago York. But there are many rotary F tubas with intonation that is as good as it gets with any tuba, and it's probably because they are the instruments with 160 years of trial and error behind them. I actually think we've messed that up in recent years trying to make F tubas more like C tubas.

Lots of big C tubas have a flat third partial, but then so did lots of Bb tubas of that size (the Conn 2xJ was famous for it). So, is it better to have a flat F or a flat G? Not sure it matters, to be honest.

In terms of ancient history, Wieprecht and Sax were both trying to peddle systems of instruments to the military bands of the day. If they received the contract to outfit, say, the Prussian Guard, they needed enough diversity of instruments to cover all the parts. Wieprecht's instruments tended to C and F, near as I can tell, while Sax's tended to Eb and Bb. Given that Wieprecht's first bass instrument was in F, and that he was successful selling to the Prussian Guard, one does not need to wonder too much why the rotary F became the default orchestral instrument in Germany. (Rotary valves are quite similar in conception to the Berlinerpumpen used in the first Wieprecht/Moritz instrument, despite superficial appearances.) The bigger curiosity is why France ended up with the small French tuba, which was pitched in C but otherwise similar to Bb baritones that became euphoniums, and why England, with the strong French influence on its instrument choices, ended up with a Barlow tuba in F rather than in Eb. British tuba players used the F-vs.-Eb debate to be snobby with one another for decades. Bevan quotes a conversation in his first edition, written in the 70's: "I will put my symphonic F tuba in the back seat while you can put your band Eb bombardon in the boot" (or something like that). Fletcher put an end to that, about the same time that French tuba players abandoned the small French Tuba in C. But most instruments sold as part of the Sax legacy were in Eb or Bb.

In the New World, we ended up with a mix. English immigrants preferred the Perinet valves and top-action instruments, while German immigrants preferred rotary valves and front-action instruments. This resulted in hybrids: Front-action tubas with pistons and top-action tubas with rotary valves (as seen among the saxhorns of the Civil War era).

When I play a C tuba, I get intonation all over the map. When I play a Bb tuba, it's pretty much in control (at least by the standards I'm capable of attaining). I'd be willing to bet that if I had played C tubas for the last 45 years, the reverse would be true. But, given enough time, I might transition from one experience to the other.

Also, I have owned Bb tubas which have attracted comments such as "that sounds like a C tuba" and "is that a C tuba?" from qualified observers (i.e., professionals). But I'll bet that putting my Holton Revelation 52, the toilet bowl that came with my Holton BB-345, into just about any grand orchestral C tuba would make it very woofy indeed.

Rick "...in no particular order" Denney

[roweenie]

As far as intonation, in general, is concerned, no horn is perfectly in tune with itself, and no horn, however expensive or perfect, plays itself. The old-timers understood this, and dealt with it accordingly.

Call me an old new-timer.
Call me someone who dismisses most of the US-made 1920's oversize Eb tubas, because of the generally bizarre and challenging intonation characteristics.
Call me someone who has played enough tubas to know that some of them are quite easy to coax over to the center line (on most any pitch) while some others (and "price range" doesn't seem to have much to do with it) might be labelled as nearly hopeless.

Though there are still (some: expensive) tubas that I would clearly label as "something for someone other than me" made today, there seem to be more easily-usable tubas make today than were made forty years ago.

I agree with everything you say, but with a caveat.

Horns that sucked 100 years ago still suck, and horns built yesterday that suck will still suck 100 years from now (if they still exist, that is). In point of fact, I would argue that the "sucky" survivors we are left with are not necessarily a good indicator of what our predecessors had to deal with, as the better ones have been, more than likely, worn out and scrapped over time from year after year of hard and extensive usage.

Yes, we have advanced somewhat when it comes to R&D; however, there are older horns that are the equal of anything considered "top-shelf" being built today, so have we really learned anything substantially new? I just don't know for sure; maybe some of the "heirloom" manufacturers just got lucky......

Also, it seems as though (although this is certainly not a hard-and-fast rule) many of the horns built today with superior intonation achieve this at the cost of "color" of sound. I'm not a scientist, but I have to wonder if part of an older horn's sound may be a product of its less-than-perfect intonation traits. For me, a trade-off of superior sound for near-perfect intonation is one I'm willing to subscribe to.

All this said, even the best horns being built today need to be "coaxed" on some notes - it's just a simple fact of physics.

[Jess Haney]

Crappy ol' school horns are in BBb.

Al Baer, people on YouTube and Dr. Tuba Professor at State University College use a CC.

Therefore...

I would definitely say this is an inaccurate statement as I own a great BBb. The BBb vs CC is all about preference but to say college wants CC only is no longer a viable statement. Brass bands are popping up all over the U.S. and many players are switching over to BBb and selling their CCs. (at least in my neck of the woods) But to state one is superior is inconsequential since both have their quirks.

[Michael Bush]

Crappy ol' school horns are in BBb.

Al Baer, people on YouTube and Dr. Tuba Professor at State University College use a CC.

Therefore...

I would definitely say this is an inaccurate statement as I own a great BBb. The BBb vs CC is all about preference but to say college wants CC only is no longer a viable statement. Brass bands are popping up all over the U.S. and many players are switching over to BBb and selling their CCs. (at least in my neck of the woods) But to state one is superior is inconsequential since both have their quirks.

I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying...

[arpthark]

Yes, sarcasm, oops. I've played many fantastic tubas, in BBb and CC. I was poking fun at the mindset that many students (and teachers) have about absolutes.

[Art Hovey]

In a conversation with Warren Deck many years ago he mentioned to me that he had never played BBb, but would like to get one . . . -if only he could find a "good one".

Don Butterfield stated that the work Warren did on Fred Geib's Conn CC made a "vast improvement". But then a few years later people were saying it was nearly unplayable.

[MaryAnn]

Well, I have found that some people tend to be more flexible and can switch instruments almost at random. Other people tend to really groove into a particular instrument and have trouble dealing with even a small change. Could be the two gentlemen who hated each others' instruments were of the non-flexible type. I think the level one plays at might dictate grooving into a particular instrument in order to achieve that level.

[Three Valves]

This reminds me of the time I switched basses with John Entwistle.

His action was too high, tone was way off, I have no idea how he made anything but noise out of it!!

[Michael Bush]

There have been some good deals on nice BBb tubas lately. Someone got an open-box Fafner from Music123 recently for $3256. I nearly pulled that trigger myself, but decided to sleep on it. Got up the next morning and it was gone. Just as well, because going back to BBb at this point would be a headache, and I love my CC. But if you want a BBb there have been some great opportunities recently.

[Rick Denney]

Again, I strongly suspect that Phillips/Jacobs story is folklore. I simply cannot imagine them NOT being able to play each others' tubas.

And I suspect their definition of "unplayable" is vastly different than my own. To wit: I'll bet nobody present for the experiment sensed that these two gentlemen could not play the other gentleman's instrument.

Rick "who has heard beautiful music emanating from instruments subsequently declared by the music-maker as unplayable" Denney

[toobagrowl]

There have been some good deals on nice BBb tubas lately. Someone got an open-box Fafner from Music123 recently for $3256.

Damn, someone got a steal of a deal on that tuba Not that I had the money for it anyway.....

I'm working (repair work - side "gig") on a couple school BBb tubas right now -- a M-W 25 BBb and a CBB 681 BBb. After hammering/ironing out the bells and getting the valves and slides moving again, both tubas are playing very well with good sound, intonation and response. The M-W 25 is overall a better-built tuba and has a bigger/richer sound, but the CBB 681 has a nice clear sound and resonant low register and maybe even better intonation. I've played those models years ago and liked them. But having them right here just reaffirms that and makes me want to save up the $$$$ to get one (either one).
It is times like this when I pick up beat-up school BBb tubas, give them a little TLC, then play 'em and am amazed at how well those "school" BBb tubas can play

[Wyvern]

I think a lot of if you perceive CC or BBb best depends on with what you are familiar. All tubas have intonation quirks, that is a matter of science, but you possibly even sub consciously adapt to those quirks. Then if you play tuba in another key, you will not adjust, or even adjust wrong so that tuba you then perceive does not play as well. You may not even be aware why you perceive such. A lot more happens sub-conscience than we appreciate.

Now a shameless plug for the new Wessex Wyvern. If you are looking for CC at reasonable price do check out when first batch arrive in about one month. That is not a cut down BBb, but was designed afresh as CC from the start. Many people, including professionals have been blown away by how good it plays. I myself did back to back comparison with Nirschl 6/4 and it plays/sounds/feels very much like its baby brother. We all have our own sound concept, but for me this tuba is perfect balance of breath and projection.

Regarding Rick Denney's mention of F tuba in British orchestras, I think that came into being through the influence of German conductors in UK. A similar influence by American conductors is causing the spread of CC tubas in orchestras around the world. Even in Germany the CC tuba is starting to appear.

[Ken Herrick]

"That is somewhat akin to the story of when Harvey Phillips and Arnold Jacobs played each others horns. Both found the instruments almost unplayable."

Pure B.......T !!!!!

[tmz1m]

I'd love to see a recording of a really good BBb tuba performance. Anything immediately come to the collective mind?

[roweenie]

Yes.

[bort]

I'd love to see a recording of a really good BBb tuba performance. Anything immediately come to the collective mind?

Search around YouTube for orchestra videos for just about any German orchestra, or the Vienna Philharmonic (just make sure its "big stuff" where they wouldn't use an F tuba). Personally, I like the Berlin Philharmonic. I've seen them live a few times (once in Berlin and twice in NYC), and Alexander von Puttkamer sounds just incredible.

[Rick Denney]

Regarding Rick Denney's mention of F tuba in British orchestras, I think that came into being through the influence of German conductors in UK. A similar influence by American conductors is causing the spread of CC tubas in orchestras around the world. Even in Germany the CC tuba is starting to appear.

Certainly German conductors were influential in Britain in the 19th Century. The instrument in common use for parts marked "tuba" prior to the 5-valved Barlow F tuba was probably a euphonium (according to Bevan), and it is reasonable that the music of the day would exceed the capabilities of a euphonium. As to whether the instrument is in F or Eb, I'm not sure conductors ever particularly cared, of if they did have an opinion, it was based on received wisdom on the choice of a favored performer. It seems to me that the French influence was strong in Britain, carried there by Besson (and to America by such as Distin), and the Barlow F was an enlargement of the French C tuba. Clearly, though, Britain followed the Sax tradition with top-action Perinet valves, and I rather doubt that was the stated preference of German conductors, who by that time were more than familiar with F and C rotary tubas.

August Helleberg favored a rotary C Sandner, which surely has its roots in the Cerveny contrabass of prior decades. But I doubt conductors cared much that it was pitched in C rather than Bb, as long as it was played in tune. When Stokowski demanded that Donatelli obtain a larger tuba, it was pitched in C, but I suspect that was Donatelli's preference, though I still harbor this notion that the flat-first configuration of the 5th valve was originally intended to be a switch valve to turn the instrument into a Bb tuba at need.

I wonder if the spread of CC tuba use in Europe is the result of American conductors, or American performers. Mel Culbertson probably had as much to do with the demise of the French C tuba in French orchestras as any conductor, and John Fletcher probably had as much to do with the acceptance of large American-style contrabass tubas (for at least some literature) in Britain as did any visiting conductor. He also can take credit for substantially increasing the size and breadth of the bass tuba used in Britain, from the small F tuba with a 13" bell to the Sovereign-style Besson Eb tuba with a 17" and then a 19" bell.

American tuba players in orchestras are more often reaching for Bb rotary kaiser tubas for certain literature, so I don't think we are done seeing Bb contrabass tubas used by orchestra professionals.

Rick "who would have loved to hear Dave Kirk play the Rudy 6/4 Bb he borrowed from Mike Lynch" Denney

[EdFirth]

Chester Schmitz had a Bb Alexander that he used when he thought it appropriate. And nobody really knew because it looked so similar to his C.

[Jess Haney]

Any recording of a British brass band has great BBb tuba recordings.

[S.G.F.]

Surely we can just admit that there are good and bad examples of each and move on. Mouthpiece goes here etc? Pick the instrument that suits the music? ie, no F tuba for Prokofiev 5, or no 6/4 Kaiser tuba for Ravel Daphnis & Chloe? Likewise an F tuba isn't easy in a Brass Band?

I'm fortunate to have a great 6/4 C, and a great 5/4 B Flat, and a brilliant F. I have different mouthpieces for each, and I don't let other people play them lest they discover that they are worth trying to borrow, or I discover that they are really not worth keeping. I guess the upside of this policy would be that when it doesn't work, it's me, and when someone offers a compliment, the buck stops in the same place. The down side would be that my bank manager isn't owed any money. Wait..........

As for great playing on a Bflat tuba?? Try Maris Jansons Bayrishces Rundfunks Orchestra Shostakovich 12. (Putkammer pre Berlin I think? On a Meinl 197??) Or Frankfurt Radio anything from Inbal through to Paarvo Jarvi (the mighty and amazing David Glidden on a Bayreuth Special [the Berlioz Requiem is a special treat]) Might also be worth Leipzig Gewandhaus Blomstedt Bruckner Cycle (David Cribb on a rudi), or anything with NDR Sinfonie under Gunter Wand (Walter Hilgers on another 197? ). If you're up for a laugh, try the Mnozil Brass guy standing in for Bransdottir, Albert Weider on what looks like another rudi. Or the Russian Philharmonic with Yablonsky recording of Shostakovich 7 on the Naxos label. There's more, But I'm not going to type half of my cd collection up, that would take more time than I have.

Play the one you have. It might just be more rewarding.