Re: CC versus BB Tubas


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

Posted by dc on December 18, 2002 at 12:58:38:

In Reply to: CC versus BB Tubas posted by Robert on December 18, 2002 at 04:14:38:

A medium CC is a good compromise is you have only one tuba to play everything. Better high range than a BB flat, better lows than an F. Also many players and conductors have no desire to have a different tuba sound for bass and contra bass parts. ( I believe that this is the reason for the ever increasing size of F tubas) I had several friends who studied with a well known US orchestral tubist (now retired) who played everything on a Miraphone 186. When asked about the F tuba he would say that anything that could be done on an F could be done on a CC. This approach was probably common in the US a generation or two ago. Now with the use of large Yorkbrunners style tubas the need for a smaller tuba sound is returning. For players aspiring to orchestral positions the most common approach seems to be to buy the biggest CC you can afford for the large horn, and then to buy the largest F, and use it both for the highest orchestral parts, and well as situations where a 6/4 tuba is overkill, such as brass quintet. After buying two expensive tubas many can't afford a 3rd tuba such as a small CC. Most good players know that there is nothing wrong with a good BB flat, but to play one as your main horn is to go against convention, and would make the use of an F more necessary, which would not be good when you want to have the biggest sound all the time. Even with the tendency for perfromance practices to meld into a regional orthodoxy, it's good to see players in brass quintets play smaller CCs or even Besson E flats.


Follow Ups: