"C tubas suck"

[bloke]

I was recently talking to a lifelong tuba playing and conservatory-trained B-flat player (a remarkably fine - in fact extraordinary - yet a bit under the radar player) who - to this day - is a pretty busy musician, has looked around at various C instruments throughout their own career, and just recently blurted this out bluntly (after sort of saying the same thing in past discussions, yet previously mincing his words). Further - were I to list their studio pedigree, likely many might raise their eyebrows and be just a bit surprised that none of those teachers ever encouraged nor inspired this player to move over to C instruments.

It's no secret that a few short years ago I walked away from C instruments - after nearly five decades of playing them, and stepped into the viewed-by-professional-and academic-American-players questionable/dubious world of B-flat playing myself. Indeed, my colleagues and myself made jokes about it - when I first took the B-flat plunge - of me having "gone amateur".

To this day, central European full-time professional players (and probably most central European amateurs?...though I don't live there, so I'm admittedly supposing) seem mostly to be B flat players (the area of the world where contrabass tubas were first suggested and constructed), though - with the world getting smaller - quite a few of them (again, as I've witnessed by the internet) have purchased C instruments (retaining their B-flat instruments) to find out what the American C thing is all about.

Sure, there are some past and present B-flat instruments that suck, but way more C models suck. They always seem to have the goal in their design and playing characteristics of "being as good as B flat instruments", and - when one of them comes fairly close - it's considered to be a gem, yet (having revisited all sorts of models of C instruments quite a few times through all of my repair work), in every size range there's a resonance lacking in the best of the C instruments that the best of the B flat instruments possess. Even Gene Pokorny is often - these days - playing (what I consider to be) a (not bad, but) run of the mill B flat instrument while leaving (what I considered to be) the best of the C instruments in its case.

I don't know the complete history of the American orchestral C instrument playing thing, but I do know that quite a few of the C instruments of the past used by American orchestral players were pretty wretched... Certainly the King C instruments were wretched, though they are curiosities and rarities which collectors seek out. I remember color brochures from the very late 1960's when Bill Bell pictured (in his shockingly old age, and obvious poor health) was holding an Anton Meinl-made knockoff of the King C instrument, and that model was just a little bit of an improvement, but still has a reputation today of being a model that offered very challenging playing characteristics - as has been discussed extensively, and whereby players greatly admire a now deceased player (namely, Sam Pilafian) who - in a very high-profile brass quintet - played the same model, played it quite well, and is still admired today for his ability to play that challenging model as well as he did.

Trial and error having taught manufacturers about improved intonation characteristics with C instruments and then graduating on to computer technology overlapping with acoustical technology has resulted in more C models with less wretched intonation characteristics, but - again - there's still the issue of less resonance when there are C and B flat versions of the same model, compared back to back. It's quite reminiscent of playing a pre-war American "monster" E flat next to a similarly sized B-flat instrument, with the monster E flat tuning characteristics being wonky and the resonance being lacking, yet with the C vs. B-flat comparisons being less striking, though obviously still there.

I'm not just talking about one instrument that I own. I actually own and use a very large B flat instrument, a much more compact B flat instrument, a B flat recording bass and - usually - a B flat sousaphone. Further, just as I've placed a very controversial title at the top of this post, I've heard just as many American C players over the years (when I myself was a C player and probably was fully into the American C tuba snobbery thing as well) say to me out loud or quietly, "B flat tubas suck"...and it's REALLY easy to say "to each their own and every player chooses the instrument that suits them best", but I prefer to go a little farther, needle/irritate/provoke people just a little bit, and just say what I think - rather than retreating to the use of quibble words, quibble sentences, and quibble paragraphs.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[russiantuba]

When I was at Buckeye Brass a few months ago playing all the Miraphone tubas, the BBb tubas were the stand out horns, in particular the largest of the Hagen series and the Siegfried. I normally don't like giant tubas, particularly the York copies, but these played so easy and didn't sound or play like them. Instant center, easy playing.

I will say, in particular, with CC tubas, it seems like the larger they are, the harder they are to play.

But I need a CC tuba for college

[bloke]

The most successful of the C instruments are SOME of those which are the most thoughtfully factory designed from scratch (costly, both in time and money), rather than being factory cut-downs of those same factories' B flat models.

Even trumpets in C:
Look at all the gadgetry and gimmickry that their players purchase to stick onto them (hoping beyond hope that those bits and pieces of things will help make those instruments offer less wonky characteristics). Then, compare those C trumpets loaded up with gimmickry and gadgetry to those same players' B-flat trumpets - which almost always remain just as they were purchased new. Further, think of the endless numbers of American C trumpet players who will insist on playing Mahler 5 (whether endlessly at home, or actually in a rare performance of this work) on a C instrument "because Bud did" (just as so many of the up and coming and established American C tuba players likely play them "because so-and-so did"), when the first pitch that they play in that Mahler symphony involves using every bit of cylindrical tubing available and pulling both of the movable slides out as far as they can be moved... and then immediately moving one of those slides right back in for the very next pitch. ... and - just as with C tubas - finally more of the factory C trumpets are becoming a little bit better because factories are designing them from scratch, instead of as cut down B flats.

Shorter instruments offer some shortcuts towards technique, but sacrifice resonance, and shorter instruments that are simply cut down from longer instruments - whether done so in someone's garage or in a factory - are likely going to be a bit wonky. The most amazing low brass excerpt videos that I encounter are those offered up by professional central European orchestras' low brass sections, with their tuba players playing B flat instruments... And even if the models that those players use are known for wonky intonation (just as with many C models) there's more resonance.
So many C tuba players have posted over the years that they have chosen their model of instrument (and quite a few of those who have posted in this way have chosen models which are some of the most wonky, in my experience) "for the sound", yet they won't even pick up and try out a B-flat instrument in an elephant room at one of the tuba shindigs.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[arpthark]

I’ll trade the 10% difference in resonance for 10% greater ease of playing due to the shorter air column. I play plenty of both, but CC is just way easier for me to get around on, mostly because I don’t really practice. I’m sure if I practiced BBb I could sound better on it and not have such fluffy attacks, but I have so much other stuff going on it’s not my main priority, not being a ‘feshnul tooba plair.

I think of all the squat little stuffy made-for-grade-school BBb tubas and can’t find that I really agree with the main point of this post, no offense. Plenty of dogs in every key.

Did I take the bait?

[russiantuba]

I’ll trade the 10% difference in resonance for 10% greater ease of playing due to the shorter air column. I play plenty of both, but CC is just way easier for me to get around on, mostly because I don’t really practice. I’m sure if I practiced BBb I could sound better on it and not have such fluffy attacks, but I have so much other stuff going on it’s not my main priority, not being a ‘feshnul tooba plair.

I think of all the squat little stuffy made-for-grade-school BBb tubas and can’t find that I really agree with the main point of this post, no offense. Plenty of dogs in every key.

Did I take the bait?

A lot of the fluffy attacks and such and the supposed lack of resonance could probably be fixed by a mouthpiece and a shank that sets the proper "gap".

Why do people play CC tuba? Either they feel they need a CC for college, or their professor brainwashes them because thats what they play and because they play CC, then every one of their students must play CC.

I just had this conversation with a student, who came to me with a CC tuba, that I would have suggested keeping them on BBb, and how their life as a music educator would be much better and easier on BBb. (yet someone once criticized me years ago when I mentioned that I don't require CC tubas and said "you should train your students for American orchestras, not the Berlin Phil").

[bloke]

Yeah...
i've never been an advocate - and certainly not a fan - for/of tiny little contrabass tubas. I just don't understand the point of them. The smallest contrabass to buy that I ever owned was a size 184, which really isn't that small, and for the same reason that so many other people owned them - which was because there really wasn't a wonderful selection of bass tubas in America 50 and 60 years ago. There's really not even any good argument towards the transport of the tiny little contrabass tubas for children, because even 3/4 size instruments aren't allowed on school buses, and are still too large for 11-year-olds to walk with a block from the school bus stop to their homes.

Fiberglass sousaphones (those that were ACTUALLY lightweight which were made about 50 - 60 years ago, and SHOULD be made again) are what should be found in middle schools (and actually high schools, though I know this will trigger a lot of people). They are full size, full bore, offer a full sound and don't end up getting smashed to smithereens by children who really aren't parented (as both of their parents work and are too exhausted to parent).

Quite a few middle schools have the goal of having a double set of instruments for home practice in school use, and doing this with fiberglass sousaphones really wouldn't cost any more than doing this with 3/4 size tubas...(yet I suspect that many of those school furnished instruments which sit in school children's homes mostly collect dust).

Don't get me wrong:
I'm also a fan of filthy lucre, and - when middle school band directors want to purchase 3/4 size tubas from me, I'll enthusiastically sell them to them.

...train your students for American orchestras, not the Berlin philharmonic

... As if one out of 100 of them are going to play in any orchestras, and with nice enough playing string sections that anything else matters very much. (which also demonstrates how very out of touch some people - in certain identifiable segments of society - are)

fluffy attacks:
This is something that horn players have to overcome with their very long instruments with a very small bore comparatively (proportionally similar to contrabass tubas and certainly proportionally similar to contrabass B flat tubas). You know what they do? They overcome it with practice and precision (or they don't ), but they typically don't seek out double French horns cut to G and C.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[Mary Ann]

As a small person, I will simply say that if air supply is an issue (as it is with kids) then the shorter bugle is easier to blow. I think kids should be on Ebs reading treble clef, which will make the switch to bass clef, no matter the key of the instrument, easier, because other than "those three notes," the pitches are the same for the dot on the page.
It has taken me as long to learn to blow the Hagen, despite its "3/4" size, as it did to learn to play my first contra, which was a 184, also a 3/4 but legitimately so. And I clearly am a better air fit on the NStar than on any contra.
I have now been trolled yet again.

[bloke]

off topic sidebar: mouthpieces

(...and please don't let the topic wander off to mouthpieces, and please continue to express your annoyance with my opinions on the best of B flat tubas - along with your apologies for most C tubas)

I agree with my michiganer friend's opinions of mouthpieces.

There are some mouthpiece cup shapes - particularly when further messed up with overly large throat openings - that are only useful by a very few players with a very few instruments, even though they are used by way more players with way more models of instruments.

I'm sort of fond of the cup shapes and throat openings and shapes that I offer for sale, but I'm not particularly fond of most of the rim contour choices that I offer to go with them, though I offer them because other people ask for them (with many of the rim contours that I offer being analogous to the three-quarter tubas that I sell to middle school band directors). As I've expressed quite a few times, I'm into one particular rim contour, though I use three (lately, mostly only two) cup openings sizes of that same contour on different instruments and mouthpieces.

I believe the goal of a mouthpiece is to not mess up an instrument, and the instrument and mouthpiece should both be so really good that the player isn't aware of either one of them while playing.
I'm not sure that any mouthpiece can make a tuba better than it is.

As a non-athletic 7th grade beginner band 12-year-old - and with a wretched mouthpiece by the way (you have no idea), I had no trouble getting a good audible sound out of a full size sousaphone, though I was only allowed to use a brass one, since the high school boys were the only ones allowed to use the cool new fiberglass ones.

I'm pretty sure that the throat size of a mouthpiece has a great deal to do with how much air is sucked out of a player when they're trying to produce a tone on a brass instrument, much more than the bore or the overall size of the instrument itself...

... and yes, the brass sousaphone that I played in the 7th grade was supported by one of those really old school tripod butterfly shaped stands that supported the instrument sideways (K&M made one of this style until recently), the bell was turned at a sharp angle to the right to compensate, the neck was swung way out to the left, the player sat to their left of the instrument on its stand and only the players right arm passed through the donut of the sousaphone. In other words, I didn't have to hold the instrument while playing it.

bloke "This may be the stupid old B-flat vs. C topic from a quarter century ago, but at least it's not talking about some carbon fiber whatever that no one's going to buy, and I've got people posting and expressing their opinions."

[prodigal]

I really like my 1960 186CC. My 1998 186CC was rather vanilla, but ok. The only other ones that I've tried and liked were a 188 and a PT6. We played CC in college, so that's what I moved to.

For fun, I play through a Tyrell etude on my CC, then on my school's 186 BBb, then on the Piglet. That is a great brain challenge on keeping the fingerings correct.

Granted, at rehearsal last Monday, I couldn't seem to play Sleigh Ride on the CC, too much muscle memory from the BBb from the 90s. (Lame excuse for being stupid.)

[bloke]

I really like my 1960 186CC. My 1998 186CC was rather vanilla, but ok. The only other ones that I've tried and liked were a 188 and a PT6. We played CC in college, so that's what I moved to.

For fun, I play through a Tyrell etude on my CC, then on my school's 186 BBb, then on the Piglet. That is a great brain challenge on keeping the fingerings correct.

Granted, at rehearsal last Monday, I couldn't seem to play Sleigh Ride on the CC, too much muscle memory from the BBb from the 90s. (Lame excuse for being stupid.)

What's really interesting about some of the 1960s 186 C tubas is that they are some of the worst out of tune and some of the best in tune C instruments which exist.. with the best of them exceeding the intonation qualities of even the 188 instruments... And the fact that their bells are more conservative in shape causes them to be one of the very few truly acoustically balanced models of C instruments.
I bought a couple of those in distressed condition -:which I brought back to very nice condition -:and ended up selling both of them.
One of them required nothing more than pushing in the first valve slide to play first valve D in the staff in tune (not even for 1-2 C sharp), and of course the mathematical thing of having to pull out the fifth valve slide to play double-low D low enough (as I converted that instrument to the modern more popular 5th valve length).
Going against everything I said here, that might have been the one C instrument I've ever owned that I possibly should have kept, but - at that time - I also had a good playing 5450, was still a C player, and just couldn't think of a time that I'd grab the 186 over the 5450. That 186 (playing it on the same day that I received it in a cardboard box with a 40% smashed in bottom bow, a badly creased bell, cobwebs in the bell, and rattly unsoiled valves... was delivered just as I was loading the car to head to that rehearsal), was the same instrument that I used to play a reading rehearsal of Borodin's Polovtsian Dances (recorded with a tablet microphone, and nothing but the repeated D naturals with the bass trombone.. and those B naturals weren't bad either...) which was uploaded to YouTube and which has received way over freakin' 26,000 views.
(It's the very type of thing that aggressive lab monkey tuba players really dig.)



Interestingly, the 32-in tall Holton compact 4/4 B-flat tuba that I currently own (identical bows and branches to the similar York model, and others have found York model number stampings on the hidden soldered in ends of the bows of these Holtons) offers the same type of sonority and ease of intonation that the 186 C offered to me, even though their bell shapes are so different.
(You can hear that Holton 4/4 B flat instrument being played the first time after I had it stuck together on an excerpt recording on my YouTube (so-called) channel of a performance of the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra.)

[catgrowlB]

I could just as well say "F tubas suck" because the funkiest sounds and intonation have generally been from them, in my experience. Talk about resonance, F tubas certainly have the least of all tubas, by far. That said, I've still enjoyed some players on some of them.

On BBb tubas -- yeah I'd probably say they have the overall best/easiest pitch, and most resonance. But I do think a lot of players like CC tubas because they tend to have a quicker response, and articulate a little cleaner - generally - than similar BBb tubas. They are like a somewhat brighter, more articulate version of BBb tubas, while still possessing that contrabass sound. That said, I've found that equivalent BBb tubas can blend better in some circumstances, and do slurring/legato playing easier than CC tubas.

I'm one of the few on here who enjoy 'modernized' monster Eb tubas. To me, they are great Maybe I got lucky, but the Holtons I have - while not perfect - are very manageable and play/sound fantastic. I also "made" a large D tuba (yes, a D tuba, pitched a half step lower than Eb), that I am having fun with. My 3rd frankentuba....an Eb, a BBb, and now a D tuba. I'm weird/eccentric like that

[Sousaswag]

I have two VERY similar 6/4 tubas. One in BBb, and one in CC. While the better of the two BBb’s isn’t built yet, the other one will likely share similar characteristics.

I think a big reason for CC other than “that’s just what Americans play” is that they’re, well, easier to play than a BBb. Quicker response, a little more agile, and there are a LOT of them.

The comparable BBb takes more technical prowess to make sound as easy, mostly with overall playability and articulation. Notice I’m not talking intonation here because there are so many tubas that are good or sucktastic in that area.

The biggest difference other than that, at least that I’m noticing between mine, is that the BBb has “guts” to the sound, where the CC approaches that quality but doesn’t quite get there. The BBb’s have some extra fat, if you will.

I’m hoping my big rebuilt BBb will be extraordinary, and think it will be very good. It will be very interesting to compare the two instruments side by side and see if my assumptions are correct.

[bloke]

@catgrowlB

The 32-in tall Holton and York instruments were really the same (B-flat and E-flat) except for their valve section bore sizes, and those E-flats are my favorites of all the "monster" E flats.
I'm told that - in earlier years - the bore sizes were even the same.
There is a previous (semi)-exception to what I'm about to say but the only monster E-flat that I ever really slicked out and enhanced into a FIVE valve instrument was a York, because I believed (and still do) that the York and Holton monster E flat intonation was better than most all the rest.

I didn't keep it very long because someone offered me way too much money for it. They were recently widowed and - due to that circumstance - I made them wait an entire year to buy it from me, but - after exactly one year to the day - they showed up - from 600 miles away - with the money. (I had totally forgotten about the agreement, but honored it.)

Years before that (perhaps 1981 or so?), I picked up a Conn top action monster E flat at an outdoor flea market for $5 with no valves. I picked up a four valve King E flat sousaphone for a very low price with a bunch of cracks in it (as it had rained in it and the rain had frozen) and converted the Conn instrument to a 4-valve front action E flat tuba with the King valve section, but that earlier instrument was quite a bit more challenging to play in tune - to the point of distraction. I can't imagine an instrument like that with genuine Conn valves playing any better in tune. I'm really not a particular fan of century old Conn tubas, nor recently made ones. I believe I toughed it out with that thing at jazz gigs for most of the year, and sold it to some lady to give as a present to her dad for $600. An inflation calculator online tells me that's the equivalent of $2200 or so today... So I guess she got an ok deal and I got an okay deal as well.

I guess I'm just chiming in to say that I view your Holton as about the best of the century-old monster E-flats, as - when I built a York instrument (same thing / same thing) - I made that decision from coming to the same conclusion...

... Now the next thing I plan to do is to cut out some more anti-theft stylized initials for some more of my personal instruments that I built for myself.

I don't post this picture very often, but this is the York E-flat that I converted from a 3-valve front-action to a 5-valve front-action (as well as to A=440 tuning).
Valves 1-3 are original (as is the original .656" bore and mouthpipe. The 4th piston/casing were from a small bore stencil-brand York-made sousaphone (though I had to cut down the casing length to match).

I believe it is now in the hands of Humbell's business associate.




A few people asked about the low range (as - in more recent times - I bought it back on consignment and sold it yet a second time). I just found that this reel was still in my computer.
With the oem .656" bore, it's not a "power" tuba, but its a very NICE tuba.

[bloke]

C tubas...They don't all "suck", but the best of them suck compared to the best of the B-flats (similar size/similar config/etc.)

I have noticed that one particular model of Chinese 6/4 C tuba seems to currently be flooding the used market.

F tubas being crap?

yep...Most models are, and seemingly the "wider-sounding" and more (so-called) "low C friendly" they seem to be engineered to accomplish, the more craptastic they seem to be. I have mine (which is lovely and ridiculously easy to play), I can only play one F tuba at a time (thus only really having use for one), I'm extremely pleased with mine, and that's about all that (really) matters to me. AGAIN...If someone is interested in BUYING a wide-sounding/low-C-friendly one from me, filthy lucre is also quite pleasing to me.

[Jperry1466]

Like so many, I was pointed to CC in college. Although I prefer and love the dark, sonorous sound of a BBb, I find myself a much more facile player on CC. I find that I have to "wrestle" my 184 to play it in tune, but I found a mouthpiece (Wick 3SL) which gets a nice sound but accommodates my "old man" lungs and chops. Just before a local German Band gig, I sat in a section full of large BBb's with good players. During a rehearsal spot, the lead clarinet player was standing behind us and said I had the best sound in the section. That surprised me, since I always struggle to blend in with the BBb guys.

[the elephant]

I tend to agree with this. I have never made the switch back to BBb, though I very nearly did around 2002 or so when I still owned one of Ev Gilmore's Alexander 163 BBb tubas that had very decent intonation and "the sound"…

… but I didn't. I was fine with my CC 163 and did not want to have to do all the work needed for a dyslexic to have to endure the switch again. If I had been in school, I would have done it, but it would be painfully hard for me to go back to BBb at this point in life.

I also, TBH, simply do not know anything at all about BBb tubas nowadays, and do not have the bread needed to pay for the extended road trips to try out a suitable number of models, then winnow them down to one or two, then play a lot of examples of the winner to find what I want.

However, if I sold the YamaYork… I would have that sort of scratch sitting here gathering dust…

Hmm…

But the BBb would have to be at least as good as my YamaYork or Holton, and that would be a very tall order, as the 826 is an excellent example, and the Holton is nearly unrelated to the horn I traded my Alex for back in 2007. I am not sure I could part with either, and if I switch, I would really need to part with both.

Hmm…

I can tell you this, though: If I were to drift over to the Dark Side again, it would be all about the rotors, baby. I love rotary Kaiser tubas.

Hmm…

Naaaaaaaaah, who am I fooling…?

[bloke]

Have Ed hire me down there for some not-enough-money-to-be-worth-it gig. I'll come down there anyway, play the gig, and show you Fat Bastard... Hell. I'll bring squatty too.

Let me play your Yamaha, and make me regret the switch.,
@the elephant