Posted by Rick Denney on April 17, 2003 at 16:34:47:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horn advice posted by Tony E on April 17, 2003 at 15:15:39:
At the end of the day, whatever works, works. I think I'm sounding more doctrinaire than I really intend to. If your audiences are buying it, then don't change a thing no matter what anybody says.
My point is to 1.) challenge the regard for sound and resonance that tuba players have with respect to that of their audience, sometimes at the expense of clarity and sparkle, and 2.) try to avoid some of the sounds that muddy up some tuba ensembles, even some very good ones.
Your other post about Sotto Voce illustrates the point. The only time they use the 6/4 tuba on the bottom part if for special effect. On their last recital that I saw, that was only on one work. Most of their work was done with a 4/4 instrument on the bottom and an F on the third part. Mike Forbes is a stickler for clarity, both in how he arranges and in how he plays. And they have King Kong euphonium players, too, who can balance the sound of any tuba, even a big one.
On occasion, though, I have heard quartets that got lost in the mud, even though their held chords sounded thrillingly massive. We love that weight, but we need to hear what we do with the ears of non-tuba players.
Listening to the Gerhard Meinl Tuba Sextet CD, I hear generally wider tonal dynamic range than the typical quartet. The bottom instrument is a huge BBb, like a Fafner (though I realize it predates the Fafner). But it is played with considerable edge, probably with a shallower mouthpiece and certainly with a different tonal concept than would be easily produced on a Holton. And it is mixed well into the background in ways that might not be so easy in live performance (remember that this group was formed for two purposes: 1, to demonstrate M-W instruments, and 2, to sell CD's--they don't tour as a group). And the high instruments are anything but dark-sounding euphoniums. The bright German rotary barytons added considerable sparkle to the sound. It was a sound concept that emphasized brilliance and clarity, and the result is relatively easy to sell to non-tuba players (except that non-tuba players only seem to like the polkas on that CD).
When I played with them, the TubaMeisters had a mix of sound that was relatively easy to sell: 4/4 contrabass, 3/4 bass, big euphonium, rotary baryton. The centerline of the group was pointed in the treble direction. Despite the four distinct kinds of instruments, we got many compliments on our ability to pass melodies up and down the line without clear boundaries. They have tried to maintain that sound mix even though their current members are using more traditional instrumentation (large 4/4 Rudy BBb, Miraphone 186 CC, and two euphoniums). They still play with a light sound that just seems to work well on stage.
Part of opening up the sound of a quartet is persuading the euphonium players to use a light touch. Demondrae Thurmond in Sotto Voce does that by playing an octave or two higher than most people can with a good sound. But it's tempting to respond to two big euphoniums by making the tubas even bigger, but I think there's a floor beneath which the sound just gets too massive.
I think it would be easier to get away with the Holton on the bottom in some venues than in others. But the sound in my head with that instrument just doesn't seem to fit what I hear in the bottom of a quartet.
That's not to say that I only reserve the Holton for special occasions. It's my main instrument, but I mainly play in a band. I use the small F for quintet.
Rick "who loves his Holton but not for everything" Denney