IF a C tuba, then...

[bloke]

THIS size:



Of course, this was ridiculous, and we were actually trying to see if we could get the music director to tell us that we were playing too loud. He never did. (This was a reading rehearsal.) He tended to listen to a lot of recordings with headphones, and - as we all know - many orchestral recordings are mixed to sound over the top.
(One of the first digitally recorded classical albums (ever) was of the Atlanta Symphony playing this piece - and Firebird on the flip side - back many decades ago, and - since there were no digital media - it was released on an LP, but this passage sounded basically like this on that LP and I had sent the modern day YouTube link to my bass trombone colleague here before this rehearsal... We had chuckled about it and it prompted what you hear.)
27,000 YouTube views is quite revealing as to what tuba players are really into - as far as music is concerned, yes?

That said, IF a C tuba, THEN a 16-1/2 inch bell handmade 186... This was a factory 5-valve made in the 60s. Since restoration, "Buffalo Bill" is the current owner, unless it has been sold.
I bought this thing out of curiosity. This was the same day it arrived in the box with no packing materials. The bottom bow had a football shaped flat dent in the bottom that was about 7 inches long and perhaps 3 inches wide. There were cobwebs in the bell, the linkage and rotors clanked like crazy, and the cork plate bumpers were way out of regulation.

It arrived just before I had to leave for this rehearsal, and I tossed it in the car - having done nothing to anything, so you're hearing the sonority enhanced by the cobwebs and the column of air sped up by the dent in the bottom.
(I went ahead and used this thing on the concert, also without having done anything to it.)

[JCTuba67]

That’s great to hear, and the backstory definitely puts the recording into perspective. I have to admit though, when I first heard it I thought you and the horn sounded pretty rough! Knowing it had a huge dent, cobwebs in the bell, and hadn’t even been gone through yet makes a lot more sense.

[bloke]

I did not make the recording... and wouldn't have, but uploaded it because it made me laugh.

Probably, out in the seats it might have sounded about right (???)
... to tuba players

[tubanh84]

If Borodin didn't want it to be a solo, he could have written it for a tuba section. But he didn't. He wrote it for a solo tuba. 10/10 no notes.

[bloke]

Those eastern European squatty 15-in bell oversized bore piggy B flats would/would have done just about the same thing...Czech, St. Pete, etc.
(basically paraphrasing from a private message conversation prompted by this post)

[catgrowlB]

Ya know, I think we need to respect the fact that everyone has their tuba preferences and sound concepts
But if someone gave me a Mira 186 (old or new), I'd immediately sell it....or throw it in the backyard

[bloke]

It was easy to make this tuba sound that way, but it was just as easy to not.
The most wonderful thing about it was that (once it was all fixed up) the only two manual pitch adjustments that I felt prompted to affect were
- pushing the first slide in for second space d. ( a really easy adjustment)
- pulling the fifth valve slide out for double low d. (a math problem which perennially exists due to the lack of a sixth valve, and a pitch that seldom appears in written music)
I had the world's greatest 5450 at that time, thought I might have some uses for this tuba, but really couldn't come up with any. It fell in the cracks between the 5450 and my F tuba.

I remember back when it was popular to hate Miraphone. It seems to me it was generated by people who lived in and near Michigan around that store that was up there, or connected to the player whose half-name was on many of that store's instruments.

Once again, I point out that the most political things that can be brought up here are pointing out the shortcomings of any particular makes and models of tuba - far more than discussing the socioeconomic and political differences between Democrats and Republicans (most of which are only rhetorical, with that rhetoric only being uttered during campaign seasons).

A bunch of models of tubas that were sold out of that store: It seemed like the higher their prices, the wonkier their tuning characteristics (not that every Miraphone tuba ever made has offered easily accessible tuning characteristics... More of them today tune up pretty well than in the past, and more of their B-flats do well -in this regard - than anything else... I'm glad to repair damaged wonky-tuning-characteristic tubas; I just wouldn't care to use them if/when hired to play somewhere.)

I tend to wonder if one of the reasons that so many of us put up with tubas which (even) require alternate valve combinations when playing "open" pitches is because a large percentage of the music that we are handed to play doesn't involve very much velocity nor complexity. Quite a few years ago, I owned some of those types of tubas.

Something that has prevented me from making more money flipping tubas - over my lifetime - is that I find it hard to sell tubas that I don't particularly like. I've passed up in numerable really good deals on tubas (with really strong profit potential) simply because I didn't like them. A widely-known tuba repairman/salesman up in the northeast has a little motto whereby "every tuba has someone's name on it" (both related to the present and the future)."

[arpthark]

I have a vintage small bell '70's 186 CC. It's definitely different than other tubas, and no modern horn really sounds like it.

The bell is tall, the sound is "up there" and also rather bright and cutting. Modern tastes (and even older tastes, if we look back at vintage American horns) have gone a different direction, with more bell pancake and a warmer/more billowy sound. Look at the modern 4/4 CCs like Eastman 832, the new Yamaha models, and even the things that Asian companies are copying now (Hirsbrunner copies, PT copies...), nothing really like it. And of course, the venerated Jin Bao 410 CC is Miraclone-ish in theory, but it's really a sort-of-copy of a modern 186, which doesn't get close to the older ones in terms of quality of timbre... and I think the Jin Bao bell is a little broader than modern 186s anyway, so "copy" should be taken loosely, to boot.

Anyway, the vintage 186. There are things I like about it and things I don't like about it. Similarly to bloke, I'm trying really hard to find a use case for it before I sell it, because it really occupies the same niche as my Piggy, and (while this may be a TubaForum sin) I generally prefer the sound of the Piggy to the 186. Oink oink!

[Mary Ann]

I will only note what I learned from a horn teacher that was really interesting. In the hall, he had a liquid, gorgeous sound. I took a few lessons from this guy, and up close -- he sounded like that. Harsh, almost hurt my ears. The highs are swallowed on the way out, and in the hall you might not laugh at what you hear.
I do not try to achieve a velvet sound up close on tuba, and I'm sure nobody cares because I'm an elderly pipsqueak amateur who blabs a lot.

[Bob Kolada]

In high school, when I started playing baritone mostly full time, I became obsessed with making the fullest, roundest, broadest sound I could. BWAH BWAH BWAH, to the point I think it started messing with my articulation.
When I started playing again a few years after graduating HS I really got into the Roger Bobo power sound, adding bass trombone into the mix only amped that up. I ended up playing a small Eb with a Bach 18 and the chainsaw with a bucket mp. During my attempt at music school in brass quintet I was playing a different small Eb with a small mp and the trombone part was played by a euphonium player, I think I was brighter than him and iirc I played bass trombone there a few times before I bought my Eb because my school tuba was pretty rough.

I've backed off that a little but would still consider myself to be in that camp. I like the clarity of smaller Miraphones and would love to play a 184 someday, I just don't like playing rotary contrabass tubas on technical stuff. Somewhere along the way I've also become a fan of the German tradition of playing bass tuba as default and dragging out a giant rotary Bb every now and then.

Anyway, I think OP sounds great. I think Daniel has a clip of him playing that piece in concert band on a Miraphone Hagen, the extra parts are neat.

[bloke]

Wade doesn't like them, but I like the smaller mouthpipe tubes with which 186 C tubas were equipped around the mid-1970's (at least by 1974).
They amplify the sonic characteristics of the model, rather than cloaking them. If there's a sonic tendency, SOMETIMES (with numerous exceptions) I like to go "full board" with it, rather than covering it.

[prodigal]

After owning a 1999 186CC, and now owning a 1960 186CC, I fully agree that there is an absolute difference in the sound and playing characteristics of the two.

My 99, was a pleasant to play, easy to play, vanilla ice cream tuba that worked pretty well for me, but always felt sluggish to me, especially after playing an F Symphonie. The low and pedal range was easy money on it though. The only tuning issue was all the way on the first slide for D in the staff, easy peasy.

The 1960 is a different beast altogether. It feels smaller, and the low range takes some work, and it's not rich in pedal register. The sound is nearly surgical in quality. It just cuts. Intonation wise, in on the first slide for D, and I like 2/3 for 3rd space Eb, but otherwise plug and play. It has the small shank bass trombone sized receiver, and the PT-49XS that I bought from Heavy_Metal is perfect for the horn. It doesn't feel like a contrabass tuba, more like a big, angry F tuba. It is an easy transition between it and the PT-15, which makes me well pleased.

It's nowhere near as "billowy," "puffy," or "round" as most modern tubas. I'm okay with that. If I want a rounder sound, then I'll work on my BBb fingerings with the PT-1.

I wonder how many surplus RWS and DWM 8mm Mauser casings it took to make it?

[prodigal]

Sorry, the recording has the proper timbre for the piece IMHO. The song is about singing praise to the Khan, even though he is your enslaver. No puffy sounding tuba necessary.

We performed it in kollidge (in English ), my friend was playing tuba in the orchestra. I was headhunted by the choir director to sing.

[bloke]

Realize that 2/3 of the "timbre" heard in the silly YouTube video is the crankin' bass trombone (credit/guilt where credit/guilt is due ).
That said, had I been playing a (paraphrasing a recent comment in this thread) puffy-fluffy Chinese 6/4 C Yorkaphone, I probably would have been heard considerable LESS of the blend ("blend"...?? ) of the two instruments?

reality which will trigger some-or-many:
Many of us are familiar with Mr. Jacobs' orchestral playing style when playing his often-copied instrument. Unless totally inappropriate, he would (most often) begin sounds with fff-f, f-mf, fp, mf-p, or mp-pp...all the same effect at different volume levels), so as to BUMP the volume level on his entrances, in order that the puffy-fluffy C 6/4 resonance would be noticed. As he was the elder statesman of the section, the trombones followed suit - in order to match the style. I have heard the orchestra a few times since Mr. Jacobs' retirement. I did not hear any residual of this effect in the post-Jacobs low brass section. Again, the Yamaha instrument (along with its superb operator) accomplishes this in other ways, even though the same length and size range, as this specific player was (pretty much) the lone consultant in the design of the Yamaha (having been sent two or three prototypes, which were rejected with comments). Additionally, I was personally told by the current occupier of the seat that they themselves used a 186 to get past preliminary rounds of auditions - setting themselves apart from other strong applicants via clarity of resonance (which hints at why fluffier-puffier Yamaha prototypes were rejected and sent back). ALL OF THAT SAID, the fact that the pitch, D (C tuba), requires several feet of cylindrical tubing is going to assist even the puffiest/fluffiest-sounding 6/4 C tubas with clarity of sonority. All of that said, my B&S "Symphonie" F tuba would/could have created just as much racket.

trumpets:
C trumpets offer a few advantages over and some compromises compared to B-flat trumpets, but notice that Vincent Bach did not (simply take his most-often-selected #25 and #37 bells, chop their cylindrical portions shorter and mount them on the cut-to-C valvesets. The bells he created for his C models were different and smaller.
This is why (I believe) that the best C-length tubas are also smaller...186, 188, 2155, 5450, PT-6-rotary version, in particular, (some others as well, which combine easily-interpreted resonance with easily-accessible tuning) etc.

[prodigal]

I'm with you on that list of CC tubas. The only oversized tubas that I like are F tubas.

[bloke]

I'm with you on that list of CC tubas. The only oversized tubas that I like are F tubas.

ok... Within limits, and as long as they're non-coaxed tuning characteristics stay pretty much within the ditches.
A sharp open second space c is a non-starter for me.
I'm not going to pick up an F tuba and have to mash fourth valve to play a C in the staff.

[prodigal]

The oversized CC tuba reminds me of oversized pickups, it's a F350 dually diesel. How many tubists are playing in ensembles that want/need that kind of sound?

Do our conductors notice or even care?

I like my 186, IMO the F150 of tubas. Sure, there are better and bigger horns, but they are useful beyond their price (well, at least a used price).

I need a reliable, easy to play contrabass, because if given a choice, I'm reaching for my F tuba, so having a contrabass that doesn't feel like work makes me actually want to practice the big horn.

[catgrowlB]

The original 6/4 York CC tubas were made for Phillip Donatelli and the Philadelphia Orchestra back in the day. I guess Donatelli or Stokowski was looking for a large "organ-like" tuba sound, and had York custom make them. But for whatever reason Donatelli didn't like the Yorks -- preferring his Conn CC -- and sold the 6/4 Yorks to his student Arnold Jacobs. Jacobs was really the only one playing such big fat CC tubas way back then but then started a trend, popularizing them.

There were other very large BBb tubas made even earlier -- York themselves made huge BBb tubas, Conn made the monster 6/4 ish 'Orchestra Grand' BBb tubas, etc. To me, those are ultimate large concert band tubas that you could probably use in other groups.

Something that was interesting to me from the tuba catalogs that arpthark posted was the Meinl-Weston one.
Meinl-Weston listed the model 20 BBb as the 'Symphony Model', and the larger model 25 BBb as the 'Standard Model'. That was back over 50+ years ago when most orchestra tuba players were playing 4/4 rotary Kings, 4/4 rotary Meinl-Westons, Miraphone 186s, and Alexander 163s. Arnold Jacobs with the 6/4 Yorks was the outlier, the exception.
Larger tubas then were mostly in BBb, and used in bands
That said, sometimes I just enjoy the simplicity of a good 3-valve BBb tuba

[Sousaswag]

The oversized CC tuba reminds me of oversized pickups, it's a F350 dually diesel. How many tubists are playing in ensembles that want/need that kind of sound?

Do our conductors notice or even care?

I like my 186, IMO the F150 of tubas. Sure, there are better and bigger horns, but they are useful beyond their price (well, at least a used price).

I need a reliable, easy to play contrabass, because if given a choice, I'm reaching for my F tuba, so having a contrabass that doesn't feel like work makes me actually want to practice the big horn.

Hey! I like my Meinl Weston F-350!

I will say - The Pt6(P) and 5450 are probably some of my favorite large tubas. A 186 or 188, though? Good ones are VERY hard to beat.

I appreciate your truck comparisons. Made me chuckle this morning.

[bloke]

I've played the CSO York. It has obviously had the holy crap buffed out of it. It hardly weighs anything (thus a misguided characteristic for the copiers to copy...ie. "we are going to copy this instrument after it has been ruined by some hack repair shop") and - because of that - the player can feel it vibrate. It's quite a physical sensation, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the sound. It also offers pretty challenging intonation compared to the Yamaha 826. The original idea of the 5th valve (which I was told by reliable sources was stolen off of it at the same time it had the holy crap buffed out of it in that so-called "overhaul") was sort of like what Getzen claimed with their C tuba, in that it could be either a C or a B flat instrument, but obviously players immediately often find more useful purposes for devices on instruments other than those for which they were intended by manufacturers.
There's a nice picture that's easy to find of Mr.Donatelli holding that tuba (likely when it was just about new, because the satin silver looked very white just as any new satin silver finish appears) and - again - it's easily seen that it was originally satin silver which indicates it originally was a normal thickness tuba. It can also be seen that (as some claim) Mr. Donatelli wasn't really overweight, so those who claim that he was fat and couldn't handle the tuba obviously made that up. I can understand not liking those tubas because one of the places that they take out length to make them into C instruments (instead of B flat) is the mouth pipe, and most all of those instruments (including the best of them which is the Yamaha) have to be held at a goofy uncomfortable 45-degree-ish angle, which surely is one of the instrument designs which has prompted this latter day tuba stand industry.
I've also played a couple of those 4/4: Conn "Donatelli" C tubas (the model that he soon bought to replace the York when selling the York to a very young Arnold Jacobs student). The intonation is surprisingly good (particularly as so many C instruments from that long ago offer really wild intonation characteristics). I like playing those tubas, just to be even more clear about it. Additionally, the mouthpipe wraps on around the bell (Conn "Donatelli" C model) allowing for a comfortable playing position.

I've played one York 6/4 B flat where by the only alteration was the addition of the fifth valve. It actually was a four valve front action factory tuba. It's quite heavy (had not had the crap buffed out of it by some Illinois overhaul shop) and larger than the Holton 345 tubas with which many of us are familiar. The tuning characteristics of the B-flat York instrument we're quite accessible. I would have had to have spent some time with it to become accustomed to playing a 6.5/4 instrument, even though the bore size is the 3/4 inch bore size with which all of us are familiar. I've also worked on a couple of those that were cut to C and - even though they were shortened - I noticed that they were also larger than Holton 345 tubas. As poorly (in my view) as the cut job was on one of those, it played pretty darn well in tune. Of course, it didn't resonate like the uncut B flat that I later played, which I discussed just above.

these are just a whole bunch more of bloke's opinions.

Maybe, but I'm trying pretty hard here to report what I observed and report what I know.