Posted by Noch einmal, bitte! on July 25, 2001 at 22:03:19:
In Reply to: Re: german F sound concept posted by Joe S. on July 25, 2001 at 20:54:57:
One more time!
[flame mode "OFF", debate mode "ON"]
[potentially helpful comments to the original poster included later on . . . .]
Just because we haven't yet defined the "German concept" in words doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is certainly a difference between the sound you'll get on a (any) rotary F tuba (most of which have a similar taper or "shape", no?) than the sound you'll get on a 6/4 Yorkbrunner CC, right? And the rotary F tubas definitely have a different sound than a YFB-822, for example. This will be true when the same player plays each.
So, let's change the terminology, and say "rotary F tuba with the 'typical' taper" instead of "German F tuba". This would exclude the one F (VMI?) with the huge 19" bell, but would include most of the popular (and some unpopular) rotary F's on the market today. These tubas tend to have more core or center to their voice -- i.e. not "fluffy". They tend to project rather than provide a broad fundamental. A Miraphone 181? will sound different than a YFB-822 or a YFB-621. The YFB-621 will sound different from the MW182.
[Joe, please tell me precisely what sound a Ming Vase makes when it is dropped onto a cement floor! This will be a challenge. Be precise! Yet we can all pretty much imagine the sound in our minds. It won't sound like a tuba being dropped onto a cement floor -- it will sound decidedly different. Yet either sound would be disasterous. ;-) ]
I do agree that the original poster should go play several F tubas (rotary and/or piston) and select the sound he/she likes the best. Of course, there may need to be some compromises (sound vs. intonation vs. quirky notes around CC/BBb vs. etc.), as there always are.
I would also boldy claim that a Miraphone rotary F will sound different than the big Yamaha piston F, with the same person playing it. And it doesn't have anything to do with German vs. Japanese. It has much to do with the bore, the taper, the percent cylindrical vs. the percent conical, the bell diameter, the type of the valves, etc. Yet I will agree with Joe that much of the sound will come from the player (but not all -- cf my first paragraph example). Joe and I will sound discernably different playing the same tuba. Guaranteed. But I will create a different sound on a Cerveny 654-6 F than on a Willson F.
*MY* ear can hear a definite difference between my Taylor GA-MC mahagony/cedar acoustic guitar and a Taylor 814 rosewood/spruce guitar [and there certainly is a difference]. But there's no way I can adequately explain it in writing. I'd have to take an experienced guitarist to the local music store and let them play both, and they would recognize the difference for themselves. But again, there is a difference, just difficult to put into words adequately.
Do you want a modest 4/4 F tuba with rotary valves? Why? Do you hear a difference between these types of tubas and a larger 5/4 rotary valved F tuba? Okay fine (BTW, one of these is the "Platdeutsch concept", the other is the "Hochdeutsch concept" . . . .), then pick the one you like, regardless of the reason. Are you concerned that the modest 4/4 horn won't sound large enough for a small orchestra setting? Join the crowd! Then buy the 5/4. Are you concerned the 5/4 is too big for quintet? Bah! Don't be. (Or, join the crowd that is!) [insert smileys liberally throughout, btw ;-D ] Do you think that the YFB-822, by virtue of its "Un-German" concept, tends to sound more like a small CC, and therefore may be more useable as a general purpose tuba, blending better in chamber music or pit orchestra than a more focused "German" concept rotary F? Hmmm, there's a reason to consider the Yamaha.
What's a tubist to do? My long-range plan is to tailor my F purchase to my biggest need initially, and hope it works out adequately for the other occasional uses. (I'm starting with a smaller F, which I intend to use playing 2nd 'bone and euph parts in a quartet, and I hope it's big enough (or I am) for quintet.) Later, if the combination of a modest F and a contrabass ends up being more work for the quintet setting than I want, and if I can afford a third tuba, then I suspect I'll go buy the YFB-822 for its more "general purpose" voice [known as the "General Purpose" concept]. [Also BTW, for a modest rotary F that has received some good press recently, consider the Cerveny F (653-5 or 654-6) that Dillon Music can provide. These are said to have a good response in the mid/low range that often requires quite some finesse on rotary F tubas. I'm getting ready to try an older version of one of these, with high hopes.]
It has taken multiple tuba-playing trips, multiple questions here and on the TubaEuph list, lots of good suggestions from knowledgable folks such as Joe and others, and months of pondering to reach this plan of attack. Most of this time is because I initially tried to make the Eb tuba (in my case a Besson 983) work for all my playing needs, and I really didn't/don't want to have to learn another new set of fingerings. But it has been fun learning more about the issues along the way. Enjoy your journey . . . .
Steve "Ich bin ein Berliner*" Inman
Kokomo, IN
that's really sjcdk(AT)iquest.net, btw . . . .
*and actually, I'm a native Hoosier . . . .