Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "double" tubas


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

Posted by Rick Denney on February 09, 2003 at 19:54:09:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: "double" tubas posted by B.G. - 10th time on February 09, 2003 at 19:21:41:

I have no problem with any approach, if it meets the player's objectives. I'm just trying to define things in consistent terms.

I've always been intrigued by the York--automatic--double tuba that is (or was) apparently owned by Vince Simonetti and is pictured in Stauffer's book. It was a BBb/F double, using two change valves. The upstream change valve routed the air through the appropriate ports and valve branches in the four double pistons that were each about a foot long. The downstream valve, a gigantic rotary, routed the air back into the outer branches of the instrument. Overall, it looked like a contrabass in size, so I suspect the F was a real MONSTER F, heh, heh. I've never heard its playing characteristics described, but it is quite a remarkable collection of pipes to look at.

I think I would prefer an automatic double, with a BBb side on my F tuba. It would be cool to push a button and give me BBb fingerings in the low register of my 621. I wouldn't need the fifth valve if it had that (except that I use it to simplify some trills), and it would avoid a problem that often plagues me: BBb-Brain. For some reason, I so expect to use BBb fingerings below the staff that I suffer from a higher-than-usual tendency to switch to BBb fingerings on the F down there. I don't suspect that this is a really good justification for a double tuba. I also suspect that Tommy Johnson is attempting stuff that is a wee bit more technical than what I'm doing in that register.

Rick "who needs to play his F more often" Denney


Follow Ups: