Posted by Rick Denney on August 01, 2001 at 17:18:39:
In Reply to: for high schoolers playing a CC posted by Mark F. on August 01, 2001 at 16:42:37:
There are many things about this article that confuse me. The first one is how does Texas A&M at College Station have a low-brass instructor? When I was there, they didn't even have a music school, and I hadn't heard that they had added one. But that aside...
The article seems to me to repeat a lot of the well-worn chestnuts about the differences between BBb tubas and CC tubas, despite my general agreement with the notion that really serious students with professional aspirations should consider switching to CC as soon as possible. Is there a concern about having a CC in a section with BBb players, because the sound of the CC might be too bright? Huh? I wonder if the author is speaking from experience or from what he reads. Does anyone believe that he could distinguish a good player playing a BBb from a good player playing a CC tuba of similar quality from behind a screen? I'd bet not. There were no such differences in the San Antonio Municipal Band when I was there, which contained a mix of BBb and CC players.
And the notion of the CC having a "refined tone" disturbs me. When Mike Sanders picked up my cheapie Cerveny clone and played it in on of my lessons, the sound he made was pretty doggone refined to me. Perhaps the typical CC player, who would not have switched to CC had they not been bound for the professional ranks, has a more refined sound than the typical BBb player, who has no such aspirations or talent. And perhaps a $9000 CC tuba has a more refined sound than a $2500 BBb tuba. But let's not blame the length of the tube for these other differences. There are real differences resulting from the shorter tube, but they seem to me far more subtle than is suggested by the author.
I was also greatly disturbed by the suggestion that a significant number of people learn CC by transposing the music rather than by just learning new fingerings. That would be enough to keep me away from the CC, which is the opposite effect the author intends. And learning to play a CC (in anticipation of the horn's arrival) by playing a BBb transposed a step? That sounds to me like foolishness, but I'm sure the more knowing will correct me.
And calling the fifth valve a "BBb valve"? That's a new one for me.
In short, the article didn't impress me much. Here's my version:
"For students with the talent and drive to realistically pursue a career playing the tuba, a CC tuba will give them more choices of professional-quality horns, more respect from some prospective college professors, and an interesting new challenge in a school band that may otherwise bore them. The CC tuba is a different instrument than a BBb tuba, more suited to some situations and less to others, but it generally works well anywhere a BBb tuba works. Because CC tubas are preferred by professionals in the U.S., more professional horns are made in that key, giving the player more options and providing the potential of a better sound therefore. The student should be encouraged to learn the CC fingerings the same way they learned BBb fingerings, though the process will proceed much more quickly because the patterns of fingerings are the same, just a whole step higher. All music should be read as written on any tuba, using fingerings appropriate for that instrument."
But then I wouldn't earn much if I was paid by the word.
Rick "thinking some educators repeat what they read instead of hearing what they hear" Denney