Re: Re: Re: Characteristic Sounds


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

Posted by K on March 09, 2004 at 18:47:56:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Characteristic Sounds posted by Rick Denney on March 08, 2004 at 22:19:24:

We are close on that standpoint, Rick.

Even within the frame of well balanced and well tuned, in the sense of Pythagoras, overtones, it is possible to create a personal sound. The "trick" is to avoid any single (or complex of a few) overtone to stand out overly from the overall overtone spectre. This feature in brasses is determined by 3 factors:

first of all the player
then the mouthpiece
and then the instrument

The player can influence the output of his equipment to a high degree, but a factor, which should not be overlooked, is that the great players refuse to use equipment, which prohibit their determining influence.

Tubas have their main design problem in the fact, that even if their main bugle may be acoustically very good in its expansion profile, that profile is totally skewed in up to 12 (or more) different ways depending on the number of valves available and actually activated. Some designers handle that scope of problems better than others.

My humble way of testing brasses is not to play the usual highlighted excerpts, but to slur all available (within my range) overtones series' arpeggios ("rips") and to play all available lip trills. Then fast tonguing all notes within the available range. If any single note is missing or, on the opposite, is overly responsive, then I reject the instrument. And that even if dealers and/or selected helpful ears maintain, that such note not lining up may never be used within the range of the music, which lesser musicians like me are allowed to play. My experience is, that overly responsive high notes will be present as an unwanted ring in the notes down the same overtone series. And that missing notes will be aurally perceptible by a certain "deadness" in notes down their overtone series.

This may have a sound like voodoo, but my process works. One instrument, which I rejected, was the 700 series non-compensating Besson Eb tuba, which has the same bore, bell, and body as the 981 comper. The top-of-the-staff Ab was unbearably over-responsive (and sharp). The same note is very good on the 981. When I talked to Besson about that phenomenon, their man said, that the added weight and rigidity of the 981 design/construction was, what solved the problem.

The factor of weight of mouthpiece and instrument (also stiffness of the latter) as lately as Tuesday came into bearing for me. The early morning had the delivery of an Eb 4 valve low brass instrument, of which I already owned the 3 valve variant. Even on the open notes the 4 valve version has a much deeper sound resembling its 4 valve BBb sibling already sitting on its Wenger chair.

One regular poster here (btw. the seller of my newest buy) often tells of his dislike of the fp approach of a late tuba deity. But exactly that approach has been part of my general schooling of playing especially polyphonic music. What has the interest of the composer (and the listener) is the marking of ones opening entry. After that one has to back off to pave the way for the other entries.

Again a long and far spread rant, but these were the thoughts called to the foreground by the previous poster.

Klaus


Follow Ups: