TubaForum.net

Everyone - who just read your post - is thinking, "I'm sure glad I don't sound like that."


DOES everyone - who just read your post - NOT sound like that?

https://www.discogs.com/master/691709-F ... antic-Tuba

BRS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 10:47 am Ok, as an example of change in sound or concept, for many years during 20’s jazz we were “the bass,” but we were really expected to sound less like “tuba” now and more like what is thought of today as “string bass.” No flab. Tight, clean, certain type of attack and decay.

Send me a link to an example, I'll NEVER reveal the name of the piece NOR the player (to ANYONE), but - at least - I'll "get" what it is you're hearing/describing.

I hear all sorts of types of tuba tonal quality and playing styles that I would never wish to emulate, but there are more than one of them, and using physical words to describe sound qualities never completely communicates (at least, not to me).

IF I publicly comment on the audio/video track that you send, I'll COMPLETELY avoid any rhetoric that would trace any reader back to the specific recorded performance.

EVEN Roger Bobo's L.P.s... (that many of us like, as they seem so present/"electric")
On LIVE recordings of him (and having head him in his best days playing with only three trombones in a recital hall) he did NOT sound like those L.P.'s "in person". He just sounded "regular"-sounding great-tuba-playing wonderful.

The flabbiness may well be a product of recording technology in general, and may be a specific product of previous difficulty in recording bass instruments well. Additionally, even with the best equipment, the person doing the recording may not be skilled at recording tuba.

I've done some recording and the person behind the glass was able to fix mistakes of one sixteenth note in a run of many. The digital "splice" was 100% inaudible. That simply didn't exist back in the day. I recall that a favorite guessing game amongst jealous people with nothing else better to do was trying to hear where the splices were in a certain seminal tuba record.

One might also be surprised by how much post-production work is done on modern recordings.

Long story short, recording back then was primitive compared to current recording, especially with respect to low-pitch instruments, and even with today's advanced technology, not everyone knows how to use it effectively.

FINALLY: It could well be the case that a well-recorded piece of tuba music is being played on a flabby reproduction system.

To paraphrase the great wrestler Booker T: "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Jim (working in Walter Sear's studio was eye-opening in many ways) Williams

again:

Send me a link(s) to an example(s) that causes you to cringe.

In no way am I attempting to argue or challenge.

I'm seriously curious regarding which particular type(s) of "not favored" sonority qualities bother you the most.

You're a thoughtful/insightful (if not anonymous) person, which is why I'm truly curious.


NOT to go off on a tangent, but...

Tons of (again: post-1980) new models are sort of set up to sound (if I can GUESS at the meaning...?) "flabby".

wide-open mouthpipe tubes, oversize (imo) valveset bores, and bell shapes which don't particularly contribute to clarity.

My 1920's (converted to 5-valve C from 4-valve B-flat, yet with the oem 4-valve valveset) was something that I would INTENTIONALLY use on some recordings...because (rather than "flabby") I would describe its innate resonance quality as "funky"...and (sometimes) "funky" is good.

I actually performed the Walter Hartley Sonata (unknowingly, in front of Dan Perantoni ) with that instrument as it was the only contrabass tuba that I OWNED - at that time - (thankfully, he trotted around backstage with compliments - which caused me to blush...but - ACTUALLY - I believe the (true virtuoso) pianist, Adrienne Park - who played it WITH me - was the overwhelming positive factor) ...
...but - THE POINT BEING - that I OVERCAME that innate "funky" sound that instrument naturally produced (as it wasn't appropriate for that piece), but it would have been EASIER to produce the sound that I achieved with a (well...) "not-so-funky" resonance contrabass tuba.

that helicon ("funky"...assuming you can sort out its resonance from the over-tracked bari-sax..??)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmbvHtgLKI

5450 (NON-funky...ALMOST - yes? - a "synthetic" resonance...which is why I chose THIS tuba for THIS tune)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sne7eRrQrjo

BRS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 12:42 pm I don’t know. I kind of dislike criticizing the individual. People obviously were putting out their momentary best. They were probably mostly proud of what ever was recorded.

If I say “flabby!” You think “yer dum. Not flabby! He’s my hero!” Then it gets weird and you throw mashed potatoes at me at Thanksgiving dinner this year…

What the hell's wrong with you? Don't you like mashed potatoes?

bloke wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 11:55 am Tons of (again: post-1980) new models are sort of set up to sound (if I can GUESS at the meaning...?) "flabby".

Whew! After disappointment in the thread about post-1980 models, now I can take comfort that I’m responsible for any flabby sounds from my pre-1980 tubas.

I’m actually having a hard time thinking what “flabby” sounds like, since it’s not one of the (also not intrinsically meaningful) words I seen used before to describe a tuba sound.

jtm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 2:32 pm I’m actually having a hard time thinking what “flabby” sounds like, since it’s not one of the (also not intrinsically meaningful) words I seen used before to describe a tuba sound.

yup...and we're not getting any help (not even confidentially/privately...)

Lips too thin, is my guess.

bloke
"

BRS: The Artist Formerly Known As ¿? wrote:I don't like the way that certain tuba players I've heard - certain ones in particular - suck.

"

not tightly controlled, powerful, or effective.
"the quartet playing was uncommitted and flabby

Well, here's an actual example. I would consider this sound to be more tubby than flabby.

Particularly the unaccompanied flute sonata, which Gene plays on F tuba, but his playing on big tubas is just as clear.

Clarity is more important than breadth.

Rick "the ideal" Denney