Re: Re: Compensating system.


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

Posted by Rick Denney on August 29, 2000 at 09:02:47:

In Reply to: Re: Compensating system. posted by travis hendra on August 28, 2000 at 22:16:44:

The world as viewed by Rick, through dirty and distorted glasses:

Those who favor compensation believe that all intonation problems resulting from valves used in combination can be fixed by the system. They laugh at players who routinely push and pull slides to bring notes into tune.

Those who prefer more valves say that compensation systems impose too many twists and turns on the tubing, which creates a stuffy sound, and that adding more valves gives the player the tools needed to address intonation issues and still maintain a free, open sound. (Note that I'm talking about the use of more valves to correct what Stauffer calls the valve swindle, not merely to extend range.)

Many of the former are in Britain, because it was a British company that popularized the compensation systems and then patented various aspects of it. It is interesting to note that in Britain (and France), orchestral sound concepts in the earlier part of the 20th century involved narrow-bore instruments.

Those who prefer more valves are based in the German tradition of relatively large rotary tubas with large bores and free-blowing characteristics. The orchestral traditions involved a sound with a different quality (not a bigger sound, necessarily).

In the U.S., those traditions mixed, but the German tendency to large contrabass tubas (for some works) instead of medium-sized bass tubas for orchestral use pointed the way to more valves rather than to compensation system. This explains, for example, the five valves supplied on what became the Chicago York (built in the early 30's based on the request of Leopold Stokowski for a bigger sound).

Also, the brass band movement in Britain reinforced a particular sound concept, where bands in the U.S. tended to be much larger and with a wider instrumentation. U.S. bands were therefore looking for a much bigger and deeper sound, hence the introduction of the Sousaphone and giant tubas designed to fulfill a similar objective.

Of course, these were tendencies, not dictates. Contrary examples abound. Bevan's book includes a picture of George Wall playing two instruments in very British settings: 1.) a 5-valve Barlow F tuba with no compensation, and 2.) a 5/4 Alexander rotary tuba. And most American euphonium players have adopted the very British compensating design, which is now produced by a lot of non-British companies.

In reality, the large compensating instruments aren't nearly as stuffy as they once were, owing to real advances and refinements in their design and construction. And large non-compensating instruments have better intonation than ever, owing to real advances and refinements in their design and construction. So the difference becomes a question more of style than substance, and in that debate traditions of one's home country will play a large role.

Rick "wiping his glasses" Denney


Follow Ups: