Tuba quartet/ensemble performance strategies - particularly if poorly voiced

[bloke]

When tuba quartets/ensembles aren't particularly well written, the acoustically suggested fundamental pitches of some of the chords are way below human range of hearing whereby those vibrations per second that would be the fundamentals of those overtone series just sound something like executable beats on a bass drum, or something like that.

In order to hope to make poorly-voiced tuba quartets/ensembles palatable at all to patrons, the bass and contrabass tubas are going to need to play nothing above mezzo forte (probably a bit softer than that) and nothing that hints at any sort of a growling/harsh/accented type of tone at all, because it's just going to sound like noise.

Okay... I've given you folks yet something else to argue about. Have at it.

[tclements]

Having conducted tuba ensembles since 1982, I consider myself somewhat of an expert in this regard. Many (MANY!) arrangements just are not voiced very well. MOST of them can be fixed if you put the 3rd part up an octave, played by lead euphonium, play the 'first' part by euph 2, and the 2nd euph part on a bass tuba. 4th part played by lowest tuba. I have improved literally DOZENS of arrangements this way, making simply DREADFUL arrangements, really playable. For those purists out there - HEY, it's a TUBA quartet for cryin' out loud.

[Mary Ann]

As someone on the bass part in a quartet -- I have often thought "This is silly. This part should be played on a euph." But I have not noted that the 2nd euph part should be payed on a bass tuba. Mostly to me it looks like it would work as well or better with three euphs and one tuba.

[Jperry1466]

Having conducted tuba ensembles since 1982, I consider myself somewhat of an expert in this regard. Many (MANY!) arrangements just are not voice very well. MOST of them can be fixed if you put the 3rd part up an octave, played by lead euphonium, play the 'first' part by euph 2, and the 2nd euph part on a bass tuba. 4th part played by lowest tuba. I have improved literally DOZENS of arrangements this way, making simply DREADFUL arrangements, really playable. For those purists out there - HEY, it's a TUBA quartet for cryin' out loud.

This is correct. Never put the 3rd and 4th parts closer than a perfect 5th Ok, occasionally MAYBE a perfect 4th, but never ever ever ever a major or minor 3rd apart. I never write anything lower than 2nd line Bb for the 3rd part - unless the 4th part is not playing anything in that passage. I find that any time a first-space A is in the 3rd part, the ensemble gets horribly muddy. Also have found that raising the key one whole step in a "fair"-sounding ensemble can make it into a good sounding one. The biggest limitation in writing for my tuba-euphonium quartet is the upper range of my 1st euphonium player. When we play for church services and play along with the congregational hymns, generally the euphoniums play the Soprano and Tenor lines, while the 1st tuba plays the Alto down an octave (which puts in in the staff), and the 2nd tuba plays the bass line, also down an octave. I have also done a lot of arranging for our church men's choir, and the key, like tubas, is spreading the voices as far apart as possible.

Some of the poorest voicing I have found is in the TubaChristmas book - lots of muddy low 3rds, surprising since so many were written by Alec Wilder.

[bloke]

@Jperry1466

Yeah this is basically what I was saying but I said it in a wonky way. I sort of view thirds as being either the 4th and 5th or the 5th and 6th partials of overtone series. And all I was trying to say was that as low as some of the thirds are written in some of those pieces, the fundamental of those implied overtone series aren't even frequencies that humans would consider to be musical pitches.

Okay.. I guess that was just as wonky.

Tony, I'm aware that you've written a Christmas book for tubas, but I've never had a chance to hear it. I'm sure it's very good.

[Jperry1466]

@bloke @tclements
I think the three of us said the same thing in our own language, but bloke, your premise is absolutely correct. I started in the 70s writing for Rex Conner's tuba ensembles, all of which featured 4 tubas and no euphoniums. He emphasized the upper register, and we had one guy who could park on the Eb above the staff all day. But that still limited one's writing and voicing. I'm glad we added euphoniums that give us much more flexibility. This has been a learning process, aided by the local professor of tuba who has taught me so much about voicing. The most cringe-worthy sound in an ensemble is the F just below the staff paired with the 1st space A.

[bone-a-phone]

Having conducted tuba ensembles since 1982, I consider myself somewhat of an expert in this regard. Many (MANY!) arrangements just are not voice very well. MOST of them can be fixed if you put the 3rd part up an octave, played by lead euphonium, play the 'first' part by euph 2, and the 2nd euph part on a bass tuba. 4th part played by lowest tuba. I have improved literally DOZENS of arrangements this way, making simply DREADFUL arrangements, really playable. For those purists out there - HEY, it's a TUBA quartet for cryin' out loud.

I have on occasion borrowed from T/E quartets for my very active trombone quartet. Even arrangements for 4 bones still fall into the same traps - putting the low voices too close together is probably the biggest identifiable offense. If you have the source in electronic format, an alternative to Tony's method is to shift the key a 4th or a 5th (preferably up) and move the bottom voice down an octave.

If you have the melody in the bottom, the top voices have to back off a lot. If you have a tune that needs a rhythm section but no rhythm section, you need to split up the big potato notes into beats so somewhere the beat goes on.

And off topic - Tony, I think in 1993-4-5 time frame in the San Jose area I played 1st bone in a band that you were conducting, and we did some recordings for an album. I don't remember anything aside from that. It's interesting to see what happens with people over time. Salud!

[bloke]

With upper B-flats and C's more easily reachable with trombones (certainly with smaller bore trombones and even alto trombones), I view trombone quartets as easier to voice.

[bone-a-phone]

With upper B-flats and C's more easily reachable with trombones (certainly with smaller bore trombones and even alto trombones), I view trombone quartets as easier to voice.

Yes, I agree it happens less frequently with bones, but with the fascination for writing bass bones so low (because I can must mean I should) it still happens for trombones. It just gets muddy the more harmony down on the staff there is, especially the bottom half. I've seen 1st parts in quartet go up to F on top of the treble staff. Honestly, not every tenor player can or wants to reach that range. In fact, the bone players I play with (all retired pros) don't think it's gentlemanly to write above C, and downright unfriendly to write above D. The people who arrange or do voicing like that aren't the same ones that mix the low stuff too closely.

Plus, you have to consider the audience. Or the potential players in any case. If your ensemble isn't that experienced, you might have an F at the bottom of the treble staff and the F under the bass staff as range bookends. Add to this your melody also having a range, and the split between the bottom voices can easily become a problem.

The group I play with tends to hand the top 3 parts around a lot, so everybody gets a shot at it. But they all play large tenors. When I move off of bass onto tenor, I usually use a 525 or 508 bore with a lighter sound. No one has ever brought an alto to play with the group. The bass has to be 90% dedicated because we don't have multiple competent bass doublers (actually the problem around here is to find anyone interested in playing bass bone).

[arpthark]

About the lowest perfect fifth I like voiced in the lower two tuba parts is Db below staff - first space Ab.

I agree that low P5s, like Bb-F are more of an effect than a harmony.

[bloke]

In my little corner of the world more principal trombone players are rediscovering 525 bore trombones, and one of the orchestras I play with did a "women of soul" pops concert last weekend and there were only two trombones. The bass trombone player and the principal both played 525 bore horns, because of the first and second bone parts look like they were perfect for that size instrument. I still don't understand why trombone players when Bolero shows up think they need to be heroes and play those on 547 bore instruments instead of 500 or 508/509.

Actually, the principal player in that orchestra owns both a no F attachment 36 and a no F attachment 78h, besides an 88h and an 8h.

Lately, the principal player in Memphis has been playing a lot of 36. Believe it or not, he also often plays second in this other orchestra referred to above. It's not uncommon for him to use a modular 42 setup that I rigged up for him and a 45 duo bore slide to play second, and that seems appropriate to me for second trombone.

The 547 bore trombone thing is almost like the players who try to play everything they possibly can on 6/4 size tubas.

ie. If I can manage to play this piece on the biggest thing I own, that's the thing with which I should play it.

[tclements]

Friends,

Since this has been a lifelong passion of mine, I will make this offer: If you have a tuba ensemble arrangement, and you are not completely happy with it, email it to me, and I will make suggestions for improvement. Email: ttuba(at)comcast(dot)net

A couple quick suggestions:
1 - The best complements are: 2+2 or 3+1
2 - More than 5 or 6 parts are seldom listenable (Scott Sutherland's arrangements are the exception)
2a - Do not confuse "fun to play," with "audience appeal (listenability)."

Good luck!

[bloke]

That's a generous offer.

==============

I guess my main point is that these are mostly college ensembles (as adults rarely form single instrument on ensembles).

Since most college children perform in large ensembles, they get a good sense of time and alignment of time in those groups, but these small single instrument ensembles mostly have the purpose of training in regards to tuning. With thirds, fifths, and sixths so very low in tuba ensembles (and lower than they occur in most any other music), I'm not sure that they're very helpful in teaching tuning to tuba students.

[tclements]

@Bloke: ESPECIALLY with large ensembles, 4 or 5 parts is the most that should be utilized. Except for the aforementioned Sutherland arrangements, anything more than that just sounds like a bowl of mush.

[bloke]

@Bloke: ESPECIALLY with large ensembles, 4 or 5 parts is the most that should be utilized. Except for the aforementioned Sutherland arrangements, anything more than that just sounds like a bowl of mush.

I believe we already agree that it's a combination of those rare well-voiced arrangements and limiting the number of parts...

...but ALSO (as I posted earlier in the thread) low pitches that are heavily articulated (SPECIFICALLY, in this type of ensemble) don't come off as pitches, but only as ugly percussive noises.

[bone-a-phone]

... I still don't understand why trombone players when Bolero shows up think they need to be heroes and play those on 547 bore instruments instead of 500 or 508/509. ...

...The 547 bore trombone thing is almost like the players who try to play everything they possibly can on 6/4 size tubas.

ie. If I can manage to play this piece on the biggest thing I own, that's the thing with which I should play it.

Yeah, don't get me started. This is definitely a pet peeve. We have Emory Remington to thank. 547 is a nice all-around instrument. You can almost play bass on it, and mostly play high tenor stuff. The thing is it doesn't sound great in either of those ranges. It's the biggest size of tenor available. So of course we need to standardize on something extreme. What gets me is when people push kids to think that 547 is professional size. I know a couple guys who will always show up with 547 for big band lead, in fact, whatever they play, it will be with a 547.

Bolero. Bolero was probably written with very small trombones in mind. Like trumpet bore kind of small. You can get a great sound with a 508.

One time I asked a young pro who was touring with a quintet and regularly subbing with the Boston Symph about equipment. She said she played the same horn, same mouthpiece for everything. I wasn't going to argue with her in public, but I think that's kind of narrow thinking. In quintet, you need a range of sounds, and most of it is lighter than what you need in Symphony Hall. I personally play an 88h or 8h with 525 slide (or a 79h) in orchestra, and a King 3bf (508) in quintet. The trombone sound gets lost easily in the French horn sound, so you need a lighter, brighter sound.

[bloke]

... I still don't understand why trombone players when Bolero shows up think they need to be heroes and play those on 547 bore instruments instead of 500 or 508/509. ...

...The 547 bore trombone thing is almost like the players who try to play everything they possibly can on 6/4 size tubas.

ie. If I can manage to play this piece on the biggest thing I own, that's the thing with which I should play it.

Yeah, don't get me started. This is definitely a pet peeve. We have Emory Remington to thank. 547 is a nice all-around instrument. You can almost play bass on it, and mostly play high tenor stuff. The thing is it doesn't sound great in either of those ranges. It's the biggest size of tenor available. So of course we need to standardize on something extreme. What gets me is when people push kids to think that 547 is professional size. I know a couple guys who will always show up with 547 for big band lead, in fact, whatever they play, it will be with a 547.

Bolero. Bolero was probably written with very small trombones in mind. Like trumpet bore kind of small. You can get a great sound with a 508.

One time I asked a young pro who was touring with a quintet and regularly subbing with the Boston Symph about equipment. She said she played the same horn, same mouthpiece for everything. I wasn't going to argue with her in public, but I think that's kind of narrow thinking. In quintet, you need a range of sounds, and most of it is lighter than what you need in Symphony Hall. I personally play an 88h or 8h with 525 slide (or a 79h) in orchestra, and a King 3bf (508) in quintet. The trombone sound gets lost easily in the French horn sound, so you need a lighter, brighter sound.

I'm view those Conn-Selmer hybrid trombones (King 607F yellow brass / King 608F gold brass) which are billed as "intermediate" as being the Rodney Dangerfields (ie. "no respect") of that line.

Quite obviously, they are King 3B-with-F-attachment 8-inch bell sections outfitted with .525" bore playing slides.
They impress me quite a bit...
...OK...DID impress me (back when they were made well)

Something else that impresses me is the LATEST VERSION OF the King 606 ("beginner" model), which is basically (again) a 3B, YET with a .500" bore.
The ONLY thing missing (from "professional") is the wide tuning slide bow and curved brace...They even feature nickel outside playing slides...
I view them as 2.5B trombones...I believe I like them better than Conn 6H trombones, and certainly better than (as people tend to use them as "pro" small trombones) Yamaha 354's...but (then again) not much Yamaha makes (with a few exceptions) impresses me very much.

I have a friend (Indiana grad from the 70's) who (I'm suspecting) feels as if they're cheating if they're not playing something really large.
LATELY, I sold them a (perfect...It was already about a 93%er, I made it perfect, and very carefully stripped and re-lacquered it) Bach 36 (no F), and then they ALSO (VERY recently) picked up a mint (Elkhart) 78H. They "like" the Conn better, but the turning is wonky (particularly 4th partial bell positions). The problem (in my opinion) is that they are playing those instruments (small shank, of course) with a wide cup opening, deep funnel cup, very large throat mouthpiece...as if to defeat the purpose of those instruments.

me: The small shank 6-1/2AL is one of the most amazing mouthpieces ever introduced by Vincent Bach.


bloke "Bob Havens: 2B with a 12C...forever"

[bone-a-phone]

We're swinging wide of the topic here, but there are a lot of 607/8/9 fans. I've never played one, and although I have two nice Kings (5b and 3b), I'm not a huge King fan. I love the 78h, but it can get scary bright when pushed. The 79h with the extra valve weight tames that tendency.

The Getzen 3508r is my new favorite small bore. I've also got a 48h, a 32h along with an Olds Recording. All great players, and all could step in and add color to any place you might be tempted to play a 547.

Academic settings are blinded to the value of anything other than the 547. Very closed minded attitude. There sre so many great bones that are not 547. The only time I use my 547 is for light bass stuff. I prefer my 8h w/525 slide or the getzen if I don't need a trigger.

I used to use 6 1/2 AM for small bores, but now I'm using Doug Elliott stuff, and play the same 104 rim on all tenors, with cups from C - G. The rim size doesn't effect the sound, the cup fits the sound. Even when I played alto, I used a 104 rim with a B cup.. Great characteristic sound.

[bloke]

At least with tubas...
(having all these different rim CONTOURS and with all these various contours available in various EMBOUCHURE OPENINGS (ie. how much of the lips are exposed) in these little plastic draws here (all: threaded/interchangeable)...
...both the rim contour and the amount of lips allowed into the mouthpiece cup (I've discovered) change the sound (as well as ease of playing) more than I ever suspected (as what I always suspected was "zero").

I play the same rim contour on all tuba/tuba-related instruments, but the donut size (amount of buzzing lips exposed) varies by a full millimeter.
It's pretty easy to put "too much signal" into an instrument. My cimbasso sounds much "cleaner" with one millimeter less lips vibrating in the cup than (as with my monstrous kaiser B-flat) one millimeter more of lips vibrating.

Long ago, I bought into the "same rim for everything" (tuba) group-think...but then it occurred to me that I would NEVER use the rim that I use on ANY tuba with a euphonium...and (well...) got past that.

cimbasso (in F)...
I also recently realized that "just because the shallowest cup and smallest throat that I offer in my tuba mouthpiece line "works" with the cimbasso, that those still may not be small enough (YET I had tried several contrabass trombone mouthpieces on that instrument, which are all - obviously - too small)...so I came up with something shallower than anything else (I offer) with a smaller throat than anything else (I offer). re: cimbasso, that mouthpiece allows me to gain quite a bit (including being able to pick it up and play it, after leaving it in its case for a month or two) and it takes away nothing. To be specific, it cleaned up the sound, it sounds much more like a low-F trombone (vs. so many of these homemades) and (well...) my range (on that particular instrument, with a "real-and-not-squeal" sound) clicked up from middle-treble-clef B-flat up to upper-treble-clef D. OK...I don't NEED to play D's on that instrument, but the B-flats (which I DO encounter) are far more secure/clear/easy. low-to-stupid-low range: no sacrifices

[jtm]

...so I came up with something shallower than anything else (I offer) with a smaller throat than anything else (I offer). re: cimbasso, that mouthpiece allows me to gain quite a bit (including being able to pick it up and play it, after leaving it in its case for a month or two) and it takes away nothing. To be specific, it cleaned up the sound, it sounds much more like a low-F trombone (vs. so many of these homemades) and (well...) my range (on that particular instrument, with a "real-and-not-squeal" sound) clicked up from middle-treble-clef B-flat up to upper-treble-clef D. OK...I don't NEED to play D's on that instrument, but the B-flats (which I DO encounter) are far more secure/clear/easy. low-to-stupid-low range: no sacrifices

What's the "donut size" on that Shallowberger? Or is this something yet again different?