Posted by Andy on February 28, 2003 at 11:53:46:
In Reply to: Re: For Jay Bertolet/re:Bruckner 4 posted by Jay Bertolet on February 26, 2003 at 08:41:58:
A couple of thoughts come to mind about this discussion. First, was the bass tuba more common than the contrabass tuba at the time these works were composed? I think so. However, if the contrabass tuba had been more prominent at that time, might Bruckner called for it's use. I don't think we'll ever know the answer to this one.
One thing to keep in mind, however, is the type and size of instruments used by the rest of the brass section at the time these compositions were composed, and how the sound of the bass tuba complimented and/or balanced the rest of the brass section at that time. I don't know a lot about the predecessors of the modern brass instruments, but my suspicion is that modern instruments are larger, and put out much more sound than the instruments used in Bruckner's day.
I agree with the musician trying to follow the composer's intention by trying to match the sound the composer had in mind. This can be done in several ways, either by using a different mouthpiece, by using a smaller contrabass tuba, or by using a bass tuba. However, we walk a fine line when we also have to balance and support the sound of a modern brass section. My personal preference would be to use the contrabass tuba that is my primary instrument, but alter the sound by changing to a smaller mouthpiece.
On a similar note, I recently heard the CSO play Symphonie Fantastique, with Gene using an F tuba throughout the performance. Mike Roylance played second, and used his BAT on some parts, and his F tuba on others. To my biased ear, there was something missing when they both were playing on the F tubas. Especially considering the sound of the brass section they had to support, I would have liked to hear them both using the Yorks. Just my two cents.