Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is low range bad on F's?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on December 18, 2001 at 11:03:01:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Why is low range bad on F's? posted by Frederick J. Young on December 17, 2001 at 17:34:45:

One hopes that Dr. Vaughan Williams would have had the opportunity to hear the Concerto well played before he died. The recording I have from the day following the premiere is not. Tones are fuzzy, uncentered, and in many cases double-vibrated. Tempos are slower than what is marked on the part, and it sounded to my disappointed ears like technique limited the pace.

I have played on a compensated Boosey F tuba, so I'm somewhat familiar with the instrument. But I'm not a good enough player to determine the problem on the recording of the Concerto. I can say with complete conviction that I sound vastly better on my Yamaha 621, and that the difference is not just me.

I'm curious about the analysis that dictates that the fourth-valve C is unavailable on the instrument. Empirical evidence backs this up, of course, and that is the subject of this thread, but we still haven't explained why some (uncompensated) F tubas don't have the problem at all. The two examples of instruments that avoid this problem are the Yamaha YFB-621 and the Willson 3200. These instruments are small and large, respectively, which indicates that it is not size. What is it about these instruments that makes the fourth-valve low C available, where it is not on the Melton you tested?

Rick "trying to learn something" Denney


Follow Ups: