Posted by Rick Denney on February 04, 2003 at 11:49:31:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flogging a dead horse... posted by JoeS on February 04, 2003 at 10:37:52:
I don't think we will ever know for sure why the CC became so popular in the U.S., but not in Europe. I have a strong suspicion that it isn't as objective as you suggest, but rather than a highly influential player (Helleberg seems as likely a possibility as any) found an instrument that he liked, and it happened to be a C. Others followed. As soon as the manufacturers followed, the trend would be self-sustaining, because the best and most expensive instruments would be in C.
But it occurs to me that the longer bugle thing may be, ahem, overblown. Let's think about the length of the bugle for various common notes:
low Bb: Played as an open second partial on a BBb tuba, the bugle is 18 feet. Played as a first-valve second partial on a CC tuba, the bugle is--yes--18 feet. But the C has to use a higher percentage of straight valve tubing.
C: Played as a fourth-valve third partial on a BBb, the bugle is 24 feet, or thereabouts, with lots of valve tubing. Played as an open second partial on a CC, the bugle is 16 feet. Advantage CC.
Db: Played 2-3 third partial on BBb, the bugle is 22 feet long. Played as 2-4 third partial on the C, the bugle is 22 feet long. Less valve tubing using BBb, therefore possible advantage to the BBb.
D: 1-2 third partial on BBb, and fourth valve third partial on CC--same bugle, but more valve tubing on C.
Eb: first valve on BBb, 2-3 on C, same bugle.
F: open third partial on BBb, first-valve third partial on CC, same bugle.
G: 1-2 fourth partial on BBb, open third partial on CC. Advantage CC.
Ab: first-valve fourth partial on BBb, 2-3 fourth partial on CC.
And so on.
The point is that C tubas play a lower partial on a shorter bugle on low B, C, G, staff C, staff G, and perhaps middle C. On all other notes, the C uses the same bugle as the BBb, even though it adds valves to get to that longer bugle. Valves have less volume than the downstream branches, so there's perhaps less volume of air to vibrate, but different horns vary so much in volume that two instruments would have to be carefully matched (i.e. 186 CC and 186 BBb) not to overwhelm that small difference.
I think that when BBb players pick up a CC that is similar to or smaller than their BBb, the first thing they play is the low C, which definitely feels better than the fourth-valve low C on their BBb. Maybe they play a tune based on memorized fingerings, so that it sounds a step higher than it did on their BBb, and they notice a more responsive feel. I wonder how strong the effect is in practice, playing the same notes, especially when the music contains lots of Bb's, Db's, Eb's, and Ab's.
I have played 186 CC's on several occasions, at a time when I was completely accustomed to the feel of a 186 BBb. There was a difference, but it did not glow in the dark. The Getzen G-50 is another instrument that seems extremely responsive and agile to me, but not moreso than the best (important qualifier here) of the new Kings, which are similar.
My F is far nimbler than any of my BBb's, and nimbler than any CC I've ever played, but that is just as likely caused by it being a small instrument of good taper proportions as anything else. And because it is higher than the BBb by the same amount as the distance between the second and third partials on the Bb, most of the notes on the F are played on a lower partial with less valve tubing, spreading its improved responsiveness over most of its range.
So, if I played music with a high proportion of B's, C's, and G's, the CC would show advantages more often than if I played music with lots of flat notes. I suspect that is why the Bb has been classed as a band instrument while the CC has been thought an orchestral instrument.
It may well be my limited understanding and recollection of repertoire, but it seems to me that I've seen lots more sharps in 19th century orchestral music (e.g. Tchaikovsky and Wagner) than in 20th century orchestral music (e.g. Shostakovich, Prokofiev), though exceptions abound. I wonder if August Helleberg, who must have been asked to play lots of Tchaikovsky and Wagner, thought a CC tuba was more effective, and started the whole trend. Both he and Bell played BBb instruments in bands, but CC instruments in orchestras. Because tuba players in Europe played mostly F tubas, they only used contrabasses when it was advantageous to do so, and therefore perhaps had less motivation to try different contrabass instruments.
All of this is, of course, sheer speculation, but it seems to fit the available facts about as well as any.
Rick "thinking that theories have to survive application to details" Denney