Respond in agreement, respond in disagreement, or lurk.

[bloke]

Low brass mouthpieces with larger than typical sized throats tend to make the high range more difficult than they help the low range be more easy, and also make quieter playing more difficult.

[Dopey]

Everyone is different?

Disagree from my experience.

I got a tip that the gnagey works with a larger throat, so ordered an AMH Paul and found my high range is as good as mouthpieces with a smaller throat.

From my plethora of mouthpieces, I tend to find centering of notes to differ more than my range when it comes to bore size.

[Schlitzz]

I usually have cleared my throat, when we’ve stopped for the violas (3rd rehearsal, standard lit).

[gocsick]

Just my $0.02 as a rank amateur

I think deep open throat mouthpieces partially cover for a lack of technique when it comes to getting a large sound out of inexperienced players... at the trade off of any clarity of articulation. That's why band directors still love 24AWs for beginning players... those whole notes sound OK.

When I switched to C4 style shallower and tighter mouthpieces... I know I sounded very pinched... I had to work hard on breath control and opening myself to get a full sound and proper pedals out (to be honest I still have more work to do here).

High range?? The best thing I ever did to improve range on contrabass tuba was to spend time on the Eb.. Again not having a great high range on CC or BBb was an air and technique issue not a mouthpiece deficiency.

[bloke]

...as far as playing the E flat tuba to develop a stronger high range...

Yes. There's nothing that improves playing higher pitches more than does playing higher pitches.

(Is anyone else old enough to remember that jive that people used to lay on others back in the '70s...??
"In order to be able to play high, you have to be able to play low." The actual truth being, "In order to be able to play high, you have to be able to play high, and in order to be able to play low, you have to be able to play low".)

Yeah I suspect (as implied) really large brass mouthpiece throat diameters are a crutch, and cloak problems while creating other problems.

To be more specific, with tuba mouthpieces I'm referring to getting much larger than 8.2mm.

When I put some of the larger-throated bass trombone mouthpieces into euphonium receivers and play, what little bit might be easier to do is too much of a trade-off for what they seem to take away... and even though I only consider myself to be a humble doubler playing the euphonium (I only manage to get what I would consider a really pretty sound when I play it for weeks at a time steadily - Label me a "utility" euphoniumist), I'm probably not the worst, and I do get paid to play it at least a few times a year.

[Mary Ann]

I love to respond to the "You need a big throat to play low" with Sarah Williams whose low playing on a horn would put some tuba players to shame.

[gocsick]

(Is anyone else old enough to remember that jive that people used to lay on others back in the '70s...??
"In order to be able to play high, you have to be able to play low." The actual truth being, "In order to be able to play high, you have to be able to play high, and in order to be able to play low, you have to be able to play low".)

I do find some truth in this... Practicing low has taught me a lot about how to use air and playing relaxed. Eliminating that tension is key, at least for me, in sounding like a tuba and not sounding like air escaping from a pinched balloon above the staff.

[bloke]

There's really no such thing as "high" when playing any bass or contrabass tubas.
Even when people are playing F tuba solos to standing room only crowds of seven or eight people in recital halls, when there's some really dramatic moment and they soar up to a G above the staff or maybe even an A natural or something, it just doesn't sound high... and really doesn't require extremely tight muscles to play those pitches.

When I haven't been practicing playing in that range very much at all (let me rephrase that: "haven't been practicing very much at all") and that range starts sounding a little bit puny, playing some stuff for about 20 or 30 minutes in that range a few nights in a row straightens it all back out again.

Also, I've offered up a mouthpiece for you folks (F tuba or cimbasso) that actually helps play pieces or passages - whereby the composer or arranger is some sort of fool, and writes things for us to play which cross over way too far into other brass instruments' ranges. Some of you have bought them from me...and thank you. Not with tuba, but with F cimbasso (and not one of those Chinese ones with the too-large contrabass tuba bore) if I'm playing that instrument a whole bunch at home, that mouthpiece offers me a clean sound up to around E-flat or so (fourth space treble clef). With an actual F bass tuba, range to B-flat below that is a breeze, even when I've been doing nothing but repairing instruments and the F tuba is covered with dust.

> shallower cup than most all tuba mouthpieces
> slightly over 32mm embouchure opening (so as to still be capable of a tuba-like resonance
> bass trombone size throat
> full-length tuba mouthpiece, offered in standard shank or (special order) small (bass trombone) shank (which fits my personal F cimbasso, as well as some of the pricey ones)
> narrower rim than most (at least, compared to most tuba mouthpieces) and not-particularly flat asymmetrical rim profile




played cold with this mouthpiece (well...second time through, but with no warm-up...I don't tend to do those), and during one of those "the F tuba is covered with dust" periods:
(To find the way to turn on the sound, put your cursor near the bottom.)

[Jerryleejr]

My .02 cents from someone that’s never been paid to play and does it simply because I enjoy it. I’ve never searched for that magical mouthpiece however I try to find one that fits my face, gives me the sound I want, and try to balance flexibility, endurance etc. Yea there’s horns that can be mouthpiece sensitive. I think a lot of players don’t spend enough time with one before moving on to something else. Just because Professional Player X swears by Mouthpiece Y doesn’t mean it’ll work for you. My understanding of range isn’t necessarily the specs of the mouthpiece but controlling embouchure, airflow and volume. There’s tradeoffs with cup and backbore size so you may give up a little endurance for range and vice versa. Finding the happy medium for you and how you play is the goal.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole hop over to the trumpet boards the mouthpiece safari never ends. I will say in those circles the standard backbore is usually 25, I found for me 27 really opened the horn up. I don’t know if in all this I added to the discussion or just muddied the water but it beats just lurking…

JJ

[1 Ton Tommy]

I'm going out to dinner with the band at a nice restaurant to spend the money we were paid last summer. Do we lose our amateur standing? Does playing for free get it back or are we just rate busters for evermore.

[bloke]

I'm going out to dinner with the band at a nice restaurant to spend the money we were paid last summer. Do we lose our amateur standing? Does playing for free get it back or are we just rate busters for evermore.

I'm pretty sure that I took your place in the amateur world when I sold my C instruments and acquired B flat instruments...so everything has balanced out. Fear not..

[tclements]

I could talk forEVER about mouthpieces (thus my own designs). *WARNING! HIGHLY OPINIONATED CONTENT FOLLOWS!*

One can do just about anything on any mouthpiece. If you practice a skill, it can be accomplished. Having said THAT, certain mouthpieces have different tendencies. For instance: a funnel shaped mouthpiece will TEND to produce more fundamental. A shallow mouthpiece tends to be brighter, thereby accentuating the upper overtones, seemingly allowing more ease in the upper register. I can play just as high on a TU33, than I can on a TU11. The 33 tends to have a fuller sound in the lower register, and the 11 has more projection in the upper register. Rims make a difference as well. That discussion for another day.

If you would like to discuss this further, please email me: ttuba@comcast.

I didn't want to bore people out of their minds.

Have a GREAT holiday season, my friends!!!

[gocsick]

I could talk forEVER about mouthpieces (thus my own designs).



I didn't want to bore people out of their minds.

But that's why we are here!

[bloke]

There are plenty of good mouthpieces,
and there are even more that would be good if they didn't have face-restrictive shaped rims and/or oversized throats.

The one I demonstrated previously is a (very) specialized mouthpiece.
I played that lick cold after four months of zero practice, perhaps a handful of gigs - none of which involved high playing - and no warm up.
There's no way that I could play that lick under the same circumstances with any other mouthpiece (at least, not with any other mouthpiece sitting around here).
It's NOT an all-around mouthpiece and I do NOT recommend it for that.

Mostly, I designed it for playing the F cimbasso, but it's also a really good mouthpiece for those tiny little E flat tubas made a century years ago, as well as (as demonstrated) playing really high tessitura orchestral parts (written for instruments other than tubas) two centuries ago, when the player has no instrument choices other than their F tuba. (Personally, I would play that piece in a performance on a compensating euphonium, whereas Carl would play it on his French tuba.)

[donn]

For instance: a funnel shaped mouthpiece will TEND to produce more fundamental. A shallow mouthpiece tends to be brighter, thereby accentuating the upper overtones, seemingly allowing more ease in the upper register. I can play just as high on a TU33, than I can on a TU11. The 33 tends to have a fuller sound in the lower register, and the 11 has more projection in the upper register. Rims make a difference as well. That discussion for another day.

If you would like to discuss this further, please email me: ttuba@comcast.

I don't want to discuss that further, I want backbores. And, OK, throat diameters. I might have been here earlier if the thread had a title.

I sometimes think the cup shape is just a way to accommodate the important part of the design, the throat and backbore.

Do small throats require less air expenditure from the player? I strongly doubt it - when you've reasonably learned to play on your mouthpiece, you will use the same air regardless. Got no evidence whatever.

Do small throats belong with particular tubas? I doubt this as well - but only if throat size can really be independent of backbore. If backbore more or less dictates throat size, then I could certainly imagine the backbore relating more intimately to the tuba.

Of course not much of this really relates to the all time great Conn 1, which extends the "funnel" concept to the point where it's unclear exactly what you would call the throat. What purity of sound!

[humBell]

Lurk.

(I am the Lurk King)