Finally got to play my 184 in an orchestra

[tubanh84]

Background - our local youth orchestra has three levels - a high school group and two middle and elementary school groups. My daughter plays in the younger group. The director knows I play tuba, and they (a) don't have a tuba in the high school group; and (b) are playing Meistersinger, so it wasn't a hard sell to sit in with them.

I've had my 184 for a few years now, but I've only ever played it in the house. I've also had a theory for a while that it's a great horn for Meistersinger. Was proven right last night. What a good time. Sings through the middle section. Has just enough body for the opening and the ending. The soli soared. Absolutely wonderful.

What I was NOT expecting, that was a pleasant surprise, is how good it was for the Hoe Down and the movement of Pomp and Circumstance that they are performing. I had intended just to use it for one rehearsal but I'll probably end up using it for the concert.

[the elephant]

Excellent! Congratulations on finally having a place to trial your baby. What fun! Tell us how the concert goes for you.

[Mary Ann]

Neat! When I did Meistersinger many years ago, it was on a 184 and yup it worked well.

[tclements]

When I got the San Jose Symphony job, I played MOST of the excerpts on a 184.....

[tubanh84]

When I got the San Jose Symphony job, I played MOST of the excerpts on a 184.....

It’s a completely different philosophy but I found it very satisfying. It won’t put a bottom on the entire group. It’s much more contained than that. So there is much more of a feeling of leaning into the basses and bassoons.

But because it cuts so well, it was very good at keeping the group together when I needed to.

I can see why people gravitated to bigger horns, but I’ve slowly been working down over the years from a Rudy to a PT6 to my current Gnagey and 184.

[Mary Ann]

I have a 184 story that is kind of sad in retrospect. I was playing the Eb part in the brass band (previous conductor, fairly early days, many many years ago) on a 184. We got a snare drum player who was always behind the beat -- he would start his stroke on the beat so the hit on the drumhead was always behind the beat. The band would keep slowing down to be "with" the snare drum, which dragged the conductor down, and it would get slower and slower because the snare player would, in his own way, follow the conductor and always be behind the beat. I was going nuts and playing very, uh, "prominently" WITH the conductor, which the 184 could do quite well. It got to a point very quickly that it was no longer fun. The conductor, instead of getting rid of the snare player, told me that she was counting on ME to keep the band on the beat. What I should have done was say, "he goes or I go, sorry, but I can't do this" but instead I quit. Eventually she and the snare player had an apparently pretty loud confrontation and she kicked him out, but I was long gone and stayed out for a few years. That's why it's sad -- the conductor made a bad mistake and the entire band suffered for it. Sometimes you have to pull the weeds.

[tubanh84]

Got to play the 184 in the hall last night for dress rehearsal. Spent the entire rehearsal going back and forth between the 184 and the Gnagey.

They are both great horns, and completely different. Big surprise. I found that for this rep, I need punchy low notes and more singing high notes. The 184 made that easier in the hall. So. The 184 got the nod for the concert today. Will report back after.

[tubanh84]

Random pontificating...

It was a hard choice to bring the 184 to the concert. The Gnagey is the better tuba. It has a more consistent sound, and the intonation is point and click. The Miraphone has a great sound when you're on your game, and the intonation is mediocre at best. But. I play it a lot, I know its tendencies, and I can play it in tune.

Playing them back to back during the dress, what I found was that ultimately I wasn't having a "which horn is better" argument with myself. I was having more of a philosophical argument with myself on what type of sound I wanted. Picking up the Gnagey after the Miraphone is like night and day. The Gnagey would win an audition any day of the year over the Miraphone. It's simply a more colorful sound IN GENERAL. And I have never played the Gnagey in public and not had someone come over and comment on its sound. It is that good.

The big decision point for me was the Meistersinger and which horn would be best for THAT. Not the best general tuba. The Gnagey is better for the opening. Miraphone better through the middle, and the Gnagey would be better for everything after the soli in general. The Gnagey simply didn't have the sound I wanted for the middle. I had to work harder than I wanted to make the sound compact and singing in the way that the Miraphone does naturally. The result of that was that I could relax on the Miraphone and still have a very present sound, while the Gnagey was more tiring the play through the middle up to the soli.

Beyond that, my decision also turned on the fact that I didn't NEED the biggest sound in the opening and closing. The tuba is very connected with the double basses throughout the piece. They have the size. I can add color. Again, the Miraphone is the clear winner here. It adds to the basses. It isn't subsumed into their sound.

Finally, the other two pieces - the Hoe Down, and Military Marches from Pomp and Circumstance benefitted a lot from the more cutting sound the Miraphone produces. The parts are very percussive, and the orchestra could listen down to me better with the Miraphone.

It was just an interesting process for me. I knew I wasn't bringing my "best" horn, which felt odd. But I was enjoying playing as the bottom of the brass and as part of the bass section, rather than the "foundation of the orchestra." I got to play the 184 in a group, which checks a box on the bucket list. I got to see if I'd been right that a 184 is great for Meistersinger. I think I was.

And the best comment I got, from two non-tuba players (one being a non-musician), neither of whom has studied or even knew Meistersinger was: "That was really interesting. You played your solo WITH the basses, not as a solo." So I call that a win.

Final thought: I don't think the conductor realized I was even switching out tubas throughout the dress rehearsal. So. There's that.

Final final thought: My wife, saying "It's funny you had that choice to make given that you SAID YOU WOULD SELL A TUBA TWO YEARS AGO." Selling tubas is hard.

[bort2.0]

Final final thought: My wife, saying "It's funny you had that choice to make given that you SAID YOU WOULD SELL A TUBA TWO YEARS AGO." Selling tubas is hard.

I'll vouch for you -- you never said that. She must have been talking to some other tuba player or something.

[bort2.0]

Reading your post makes me miss my Miraphone 188... even though I think I've found my ultimate happiness in much larger rotary tubas.

[tubanh84]

Reading your post makes me miss my Miraphone 188... even though I think I've found my ultimate happiness in much larger rotary tubas.

If I recall, it’s not hard to make you miss that 188.

I did have the thought that a 186 or 188 might actually be the perfect tuba. I’ve never played either, but put a little more size on the 184. Not even that much. And it would be a solid one-horn-quiver.

[bort2.0]

Reading your post makes me miss my Miraphone 188... even though I think I've found my ultimate happiness in much larger rotary tubas.

If I recall, it’s not hard to make you miss that 188.

I did have the thought that a 186 or 188 might actually be the perfect tuba. I’ve never played either, but put a little more size on the 184. Not even that much. And it would be a solid one-horn-quiver.

You are correct. :)

As I've mentioned before, the 188 was a great tuba for orchestra -- right amount of power, right amount of presence, and the right amount of directness to cut through the ensemble when you wanted to do that. It never felt too big, but never felt too small either. Even when playing 1812 overture with a full choir*, it felt like plenty of tuba. A bigger tuba might have worked better. But the 188 never let me down.

I didn't have the same experience playing the 188 in band -- especially in a large and loud band, it was too much work to play it constantly at the top 10% of its volume output. Larger tubas are not louder, but they sure seem to be more efficient in creating more output (more volume and/or presence from the same amount of effort).

All this to say, I think if you wanted the 184 but a little bit more, then the 186 would be a good thing to try. And if you wanted the 186 but a little bit more, then try the 188. If you want the 188 but a little bit more... tell me when you find out what that is. I've been looking since 2005, and haven't figured it out yet.

I've been told that the Alex 163 is very close to that... and I had one... but I didn't keep it long enough to get to know it very well. Among other things, I owned it during Covid (so there was very little playing outside of the house) and I just couldn't get my brain to work with a 4 valve CC tuba again. I'd like to try a GOOD 5-valve Alex 163 CC sometime. I do think that might be a nice option for me.

Otherwise, the 5/4 tubas out there are really a few steps bigger than the 188, and not comparable in the way that I had hoped. The PT-6 is a fantastic tuba, and definitely one I should have kept (but had to sell to buy our house). The Willson 3050 was also far larger than the 188, and a far more satisfying sound in a lot of ways, but crappy ergonomics. The other big tubas I've had were also just WAY larger than the 188, and I have normalized their bigness to the point that the 188 would probably seem kind of small-ish now. The last big tuba I owned was the Rudy 5/4 BBb, and I quickly felt more at-home on that tuba than just about anything else I had ever played. Ridiculously good tuba that easily makes the sound that I wanted to make.

So after all that trying to find the right "188 plus a little more," my ideal tuba turned out to be pretty much the biggest possible tuba you can get. And in BBb. I guess when you look in the wrong places, you find the wrong things. But eventually, you look in the right place.


*During our first rehearsal with the full choir, the singer on the riser behind me asked me "do you have to play so loud"? I forget exactly what I said, but basically "no" and "the conductor wants it this way." I wasn't trying to be rude to her. Both of those responses were 100% honest.

[tubanh84]

I've played both a Rudy 5/4 CC and PT6 (rotary). Both great. Loved the Rudy. Respected the hell out of the PT6. I miss the Rudy sometimes. I don't ever really miss the PT6. It was a great horn, but it was a tool, and I never really connected with it despite playing it for a decade. I just don't need THAT much size anymore, and I'm not looking for it. The Gnagey makes enough sound for any group I'll play in, and between the 184 and my MW182, I've got smaller and different timbres covered. And given that most of my playing is in my back room with my etude books, it fits my needs perfectly. Lovely little horn that doesn't annoy the family if I'm playing moderately.

The best part about the 184 is how easy the low register is. Very little effort, and it all pops, and it cuts through the group without being too too brassy. The little staccato G's and E's under the trumpet solo in Hoe Down were a lot of fun.

One of these days I'll run into a 186 or 188 to play around with.

[Rick Denney]

I've been playing a 184 (Bb, however) in quintet, simply because the low register is a bit easier for me to manage with my tremor problems. My F tubas require ultimate relaxation in the low register, and that's a struggle for me. A lot of quintet lit is written for contrabass tubas.

There are times when a bigger tuba would be better, even in quintet. We've got a quickie gig coming up where we will be playing the National Anthem, and I may well decide to bring the 186 I just bought for that one. My only hesitation is aesthetic--the 186 doesn't "present" well. I may be able to improve that a bit over the coming weekend.

With orchestras, it depends on the orchestra and the venue, it seems to me. OP's use case was with a smaller youth orchestra, where a big tuba would probably be too dominant. An F tuba with a good low register might have worked as well as the 184, but it would be more work in the low register. I like Meistersinger on a big F tuba, actually. But then I think of my 184 as an F tuba with Bb fingerings. It also works well with the trombonist, who uses a vintage F-trigger tenor in that group, not a modern monster. I don't think the sound would keep up with modern orchestra pros, but then neither would I.

Regarding big tubas, it depends also on the group and the venue. In my band, the group generally plays too loudly (like all amateur groups) and on high-school stages optimized for speech. That means they are dead and usually without any shell, so a big, wide tuba like the Holton tends to have trouble getting out of the curtains. In a resonant hall, and with a group that contains its sound, the Holton rules the waves. In a dead space, the Hirsbrunner has more projection than probably most tubas ever made. I'm not a big-sound player by any means and that help is much appreciated. But as superlative as the Hirsbrunner is, it's just too big and powerful for a lot of situations.

Rick "context is everything" Denney

[tubanh84]

Rick "context is everything" Denney

I completely agree that I had a good context to try this out, absolutely. It probably would not work in the Chicago Symphony. But, again, I don't know that Gene Pokorny on a 184 doing this same concert but played by the CSO wouldn't sound good on the 184. I wouldn't stand up to the Chicago Symphony on any horn. I had very good training, and I can put out a lot of sound. But I've been in a room with Gene, and I have never and will never put out sound like that. Neither would most players out there, though. And I say that having heard several great players playing in an equally notoriously loud orchestra. Most of them got buried on their York copies. And it's why the person who won the job won it. He was the one who could consistently keep up.

But, given my experience in various levels of orchestras throughout the years, I think it would work (for me) in more groups than it wouldn't. And, even though this was *just* a student group, it was a chance for me to play the pieces as well as I possibly could and make myself play the parts for an audience and try to make the best music I could out of them. I've pulled back a lot, and those chances are fewer and further between these days while I focus on other things.

I'm not advocating for using a 184 in every setting. But I think it and horns like it are more useful than they've gotten credit for in the past couple decades. And I've been pretty consistent in that I don't agree with using York-copy-or-inspired-horns for as much as they are used for in modern orchestras. I think it's a fallacy to say they're the right tool simply because the best players use them. I've heard many of those best players live in concert, and a grand total of two of them have ever had what I consider to be "presence" with those horns when the whole group is playing. They sound MAGNIFICENT solo or with a small ensemble. But the sound gets buried once the whole group is playing. (And full disclosure, your posts about the difference between German and American tubas years and years ago still echo in my head when I hear that happening).

I've also heard European groups play where the tuba player is playing a medium-to-large F tuba, and their sound is very present. Same thing with British orchestras and Eb tubas.

If I were asked by a professional group to play this exact concert, I would use the 184 again. In the Hoe Down, the most important sections to think about were the low punctuating notes underneath the trumpet solo, which would be the same in any size group, and adding some clarity and snap to the rhythmic motif for the basses. In the Elgar, the job was again to add clarity to the basses. (This is as much for the orchestra, to help it stay together, as it is for the audience). In the Meistersinger, the opening and closing will largely sound the same no matter the horn the tuba player is using. But the middle, where there needs to be lyrical mid/high playing (again, with the basses), it can stand out. None of that needed a huge all-enveloping sound.

I think tuba players can fall into the trap I felt myself falling into at the dress rehearsal, which is a common fallacy in other fields too. "If I don't make the 'expected' choice, and it goes badly, I will look bad. If I make the expected choice, and it goes badly, I'm insulated." It's why it's easy to hire people from Harvard. If they don't work out, the person who hired them can't be blamed. They hired someone from Harvard! So if I bring my bigger horn, with the bigger sound, that sounds more like the stereotypical "tuba," and it doesn't work out, well, who can you blame? But if I bring a more unique horn and it doesn't work out, how dare I?

Anyway. I'm rambling again. But. That's the joy of being an amateur. I can make different choices and report back. And I'm confident enough in my playing, experience, and taste, that I think it has some worth.

I guess my overarching point is that the tuba can have a lot of functions in an orchestra, and it can require not only thinking of size of sound, but also color and purpose. For this concert, with those pieces, the 184 fit the purpose and color very very well. It was fun to have an excuse to test that out.