A question of "playability'.....

[2bahawk]

I have heard it said that better quality instruments are easier to play than most student models. Can anybody explain this to me in practical terms? What differences might one actually notice that make the increased expense of buying an intermediate or professional level tuba worthwhile?

I play in a church orchestra. We use a wide range of very easy to challenging scores.

[Schlepporello]

Being primarily a church musician myself I would say that a lot of it has to do with not only the responsiveness of the horn but it's ability to play in tune. I own a few horns and my ZO Tiny Dragon is gonna be a bear to try to play in tune at fortissimo levels when that won't be the case for my Miraphone 496 "Hagen".

[Rick Denney]

For me, playability means that reasonable general fundamentals are enough to get a good sound with acceptable intonation.

Professional tubas are not necessarily easier to play, but they get marginally better results for people bringing special skills in addition to reasonable general fundamentals. But some professional tubas do exactly that, and it all hinges on which fundamentals are lacking or the specific objectives of the performer.

Some tubas just require a particular approach that not everyone finds as intuitively easy. Those special techniques have to be learned, and this is not uncommon for tubas that have a revered sound but challenging intonation. These are not tubas for beginners and hobbyists who lack experience, training, or practice time, who wouldn’t find them particularly playable.

I don’t find that the playability axis particularly aligns with the starter-intermediate-professional axis. (Especially the way that axis is often represented by retailers.) Some tubas that are famously playable are not used that often by pros—the Miraphone 186 is an example, as are the best examples of the King 2341. But those are not sold as beginner instruments even though there is no reason (except price) why beginners can’t or shouldn’t learn on them.

Rick “you just have to go to conferences and play a lot of tubas” Denney

[JC2]

I wouldn’t say a professional tuba is necessarily easier to play for everybody. Your level of playing is a really important factor. A professional tuba is meant for a professional to sound really good. Some of these instruments are actually pretty demanding on the player and require a certain level of skill and dedication. Some other professional instruments are very friendly. It really depends on your situation.

[matt g]

The notion of a “professional” tuba is somewhat ambiguous.

On a trumpet, it’s usually defined as 1st/3rd valve do-dads, plating/finish upgrades, alternate brass alloy/metals, and fancy engraving.

The scheme there is quite clear. And a lot of these things don’t cost much at the factory but they add a lot in terms of profit.

The bigger and more complicated the brass instrument, the less important these things become as opposed to response, timbre, and intonation.

Sure, some manufacturers will swap out nickel silver for brass on slides, and maybe a few other things, but there have been plenty of tubas marketed as “professional” in a very tautological sense (i.e., a professional player plays and/or help designed them).

The number of valves is a factor, but that’s because there’s a certain expectation from the modern repertoire. As @LeMark has pointed out before, a lot of the high school band literature necessitates having a fourth valve now.

On the flip side, it can be argued that a significant amount of money being made playing a brass contrabass is done on Sousaphone. Most of these are three valve only and often no frills.

Now that the above ramble is over, I’d like to say that I’ve played school-owned 3V tubas (YBB-103 and 2340 come to mind) that were very playable tubas. I’ve played some of those old Miraphone “S-line” tubas that absolutely kicked butt compared to the high grade variants of the same design.

I’ve also played some large, expensive, and popular tubas in the past and not been impressed. They haven’t been “playable” and they’d be marketed as professional.

Long story short, I’ve found that the marketing guarantees very little.

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

Two separate general sets of issues are [1] how accessible an instrument is too having music played on it, and the other being [2] build quality.

When both are at their pinnacle, the player shouldn't be aware of the instrument, and should only be aware of the music.

Every once in awhile I manufacturer of just about any sort of piece of equipment will build something that's supposed to be budget line and it ends up being wonderful but not all that often. One example in the past and our industry is the Couesnon flugelhorn. Some of them feature build quality that was just impossible, but those that were made good enough were amazing - due to their playing characteristics overshadowing their build quality.

[LeMark]

I played a front action tuba this morning that didn't have a single accessible slide for the user. Gave off a strong student vibe even though the horn itself played pretty good. Intonation was good, but not so good that I would feel comfortable without having slide pulling as an option

[iiipopes]

What constitutes playability? I think the main point was made in the above posts. To summarize: are you distracted and fidgety and always feel you have to over-adjust something about the horn, or are you focused on the music with the instrument being merely the facilitator of the music? Playability, in addition to all the items and attributes mentioned above that the horn must have, includes items that the upper and middle brass don't necessarily have to deal with, and include some tailoring to the player. For me, this includes:

1) Making the upper first valve loop into a moveable slide on a Conn and similar souzys, as well as making sure the player can ride throttle on the necessary slides on conventional tubas, whether piston or rotor;
2) On a rotor instrument, repositioning the paddles to fit the playing hand of the player;
3) Matching the height and angle of the receiver and lead pipe to the player. For me, that is about stock height, but with a 10 to 15 degree upward tilt of the receiver to match my overbite;
4) Making sure there are sufficient water keys in the right locations for the breath characteristics of the player, so any water can be emptied immediately. For me, that was adding a water key to the 2nd valve slide of my Jupiter JTU1110. I blew right through the 1st valve circuit and all the condensation collected in the 2nd valve circuit. Moreover, the "King spin" is archaic.
5) Matching the horn to the physique of the player. For example, as much as I enjoyed the 38K I got to use years ago, my shoulder will not take the 35+ pounds of weight. So now Lee Stofer is restoring a 36K for me.
6) matching the mouthpiece to the player and the horn. I wrote a long thread about this with my recently acquired two mouthpieces, RT-82 and old PT-82. This includes the proper diameter and contour of the mouthpiece rim to the player's embouchure, the proper throat and backbore for the player's breath support, and the proper cup geometry to match the horn, ensemble, and repertoire.

When all of these items are tailored to the player, then the player is freed to focus on the music. Yes, they are necessary. Just as I wear a 42 regular suit, with a 33 inch sleeve, 37 inch waist, moderate rise, and 30 inch inseam, a 44 long nor a 40 short, nor even an off-the-rack 42 regular without alterations will fit me. Same with a tuba and mouthpiece. This does not mean I go on protracted mouthpiece safaris to find "the tone." That will never happen. The best mouthpiece is still a compromise somewhere. Find one you can play and play it. When in doubt, go practice. And all of these pointers are merely mechanical aids to playing. They are never to be construed as excuses for a player not playing the player's best. For example, I have been cracking notes too often the last two community band rehearsals. It is time to review breathing fundamentals and make sure I'm not over-working or under-working anything, including the corners of the embouchure and relative mouthpiece pressure.

[bloke]

I probably already said this, but - to me - nirvanic playability is defined as follows: "No matter how difficult the music, the player still isn't aware of the instrument", and is only aware of their own limitations. We can define it in all sorts of mechanical ways, but - again - playing characteristics are not only mechanical aspects. Someone remarked that they encountered a tuba which didn't have any slides that they could reach to pull, but - one of my tubas, which I've had for over four decades - doesn't really demand that I pull any of its slides when I'm playing...(OK.. I have a little right hand thumb gadget on the 5th slide to play two pitches in the very low range a little bit better in tune...)

[DonO.]

Interesting discussion. The primary horn I ended up with as a “comeback” player, the King “new style” 2341, is described by Conn/Selmer variously as “intermediate”, “step-up”, and even “professional”. So what makes it professional? Does anyone know a professional tuba player using a 2341? First, it’s BBb. Most professionals seem to use CC for contrabass duties. Secondly, it only has 4 valves. Most professionals seem to demand at least 5. What it really is, it seems to me, is a tuba designed and aimed straight at the high school band market. For me it is an ideal horn and exceeds my expectations. I have always been a BBb only player, so that fits me well. It plays very well in tune within the “money range”, being practically plug and play with no fussing. As for “professional features” that have been mentioned here, the King doesn’t have many. EVERYTHING is yellow brass, no nickel silver trim anywhere. The only exception is the nickel silver lead pipe, which is good in that there will be no red rot in this vulnerable spot. Even the buttons are solid brass. Would I like it if there was some nickel silver bling here and there? Certainly, but is that anything but cosmetics? Maybe nickel silver inner/outer slides serve a purpose being more corrosion resistant, that would be nice too. And I would really like some real mother of pearl buttons, I think that would add a touch of class. But that’s just vanity talking, not practicality. It’s more than enough horn for me; being mainly interested in community band, it serves me very well indeed. But when Conn/Selmer refers to it as “professional”, that’s just marketing hyperbole.

[Mary Ann]

I have played many more different horns than I have tubas, and for me on horns, even subtle differences in playability are obvious. What's funny is that the venerable 8D is still seen by some as the best of the best, but you know what? Those things are hard to play; it takes effort to make them go. They also fit larger hands better than small hands, and phooey -- why would I want something that is work to play and doesn't fit my hands? I went through a number of horns before I settled on the one I have, which was at least 25 years ago.

What's interesting is that the Schmid I have now, which is very easy to play, was owned by two different 8D players before I bought it third hand. Both couldn't get used to it, and my assumption is that they were putting in the type of effort required to play an 8D, and that was like going from driving a Mack truck to driving a fast motorcycle -- if you can't scale down what you put in, it's going to take off with you.

So playability perhaps really means "Fits what I want to put into it." Getting the tone I want is my problem, although there are inherent characteristics of instruments. No matter what you're playing, you still sound like you, and for me, finding the instrument that is easiest for me to sound like me, is the one that is the most playable.

[2bahawk]

Thank you all - the responses have, in many cases, exceeded my knowledge level. I have played for many years but have always considered myself a "hobbyist". I will be taking a trip to Baltimore Brass in 2 weeks to try out some BBb tubas. I am taking my 3 valve Jupiter along. I am not even sure what model it is. Hopefully these guys will be able to tell me what I have and what it is worth. Perhaps my experience with their in store stock will help me make a decision about where I want to go. Agin, my thanks....

[iiipopes]

I probably already said this, but - to me - nirvanic playability is defined as follows: "No matter how difficult the music, the player still isn't aware of the instrument", and is only aware of their own limitations. We can define it in all sorts of mechanical ways, but - again - playing characteristics are not only mechanical aspects. Someone remarked that they encountered a tuba which didn't have any slides that they could reach to pull, but - one of my tubas, which I've had for over four decades - doesn't really demand that I pull any of its slides when I'm playing...(OK.. I have a little right hand thumb gadget on the 5th slide to play two pitches in the very low range a little bit better in tune...)

Bloke and I are saying the same things. I'm only giving some mechanical details to help the player help the horn get there.

I have played many more different horns than I have tubas, and for me on horns, even subtle differences in playability are obvious. What's funny is that the venerable 8D is still seen by some as the best of the best, but you know what? Those things are hard to play; it takes effort to make them go. They also fit larger hands better than small hands, and phooey -- why would I want something that is work to play and doesn't fit my hands? I went through a number of horns before I settled on the one I have, which was at least 25 years ago.

What's interesting is that the Schmid I have now, which is very easy to play, was owned by two different 8D players before I bought it third hand. Both couldn't get used to it, and my assumption is that they were putting in the type of effort required to play an 8D, and that was like going from driving a Mack truck to driving a fast motorcycle -- if you can't scale down what you put in, it's going to take off with you.

So playability perhaps really means "Fits what I want to put into it." Getting the tone I want is my problem, although there are inherent characteristics of instruments. No matter what you're playing, you still sound like you, and for me, finding the instrument that is easiest for me to sound like me, is the one that is the most playable.

Mary Ann has wonderfully elucidated on my points #5 & #6.

[iiipopes]

Bass guitars. These same discussions are hashed on talkbass.com . The same considerations apply. Some folks by boutique electric basses that cost beaucoup bucks, with exotic woods, on-board electronics, etc. Others purchase less expensive instruments that fit them, fit their style of playing, and fit the repertoire. They also earn their keep with gigs, studio sessions, etc. Everybody forgets that such legendary players as both James Jamerson and Carol Kaye contributed their bass lines, made their reputations, and contributed to more top-40 hits than the rest of the world combined, all on a bone-stock Fender Precision Bass.

Because my hands aren't a flexible as they were thirty years ago, I did have a custom neck made with a one-inch shorter scale than Fender Standard a few years ago. Because I now feed a digital board that will pick up any underlying noise and make a mess of things, I do have EMG active pickups that have a >-100dB noise floor. But back in the day, a good P-bass, or in my case a P-style bass, got the job done. Passive electronics, as Leo Fender envisioned the instrument. Attached is the link to my example, from the 2005 PBS Lawrence Welk Special Precious Memories. Yes, I'm playing everything from start to finish, except for the obvious orchestra overdubs:

[PlayTheTuba]

...the "King spin" is archaic.

Only if people are sitting to close to me and the composer decided that to not let me play at my best, which is during (ridiculously) long rests or tacets.

If only manufacturers swapped the piping on their valve-sets or the ports themselves.
But that would make things too complicated or it makes too much sense them to consider it.

*For tubas valve tubing that either point away from the ground or featured loop-de-loops

[PlayTheTuba]

...the "King spin" is archaic.

Only if people are sitting to close to me and the composer decided that to not let me play at my best, which is during (ridiculously) long rests or tacets.

If only manufacturers swapped the piping on their valve-sets or the ports themselves.
But that would make things too complicated or it makes too much sense them to consider it.

*For tubas valve tubing that either point away from the ground or featured loop-de-loops

For a king, I prefer to hold down the 4th valve and dump the water back through the leadpipe. Better than spinning

[Mark]

The big York-like 6/4 CC tubas are not easy to play for a beginning tuba player.

[Mary Ann]

The big York-like 6/4 CC tubas are not easy to play for a beginning tuba player.

I found the Nirschl easy to play but laughably impossible to hold.

[bloke]

The big York-like 6/4 CC tubas are not easy to play for a beginning tuba player.

agreed...
They have to mash a button, in order to play the first two notes.

first two.jpg (44.26 KiB) Viewed 2435 times