Re: Re: Why cut a BBb to a CC?

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

Posted by Klaus on July 30, 2002 at 11:13:31:

In Reply to: Re: Why cut a BBb to a CC? posted by js - your answer on July 29, 2002 at 12:10:55:

This is a very good and interesting posting, because it takes a balanced view of the CC versus BBb matter. Because it also lists the strength of the BBb. Because is punctures the myth of a CC per se being better for the most common orchestral keys.

Being a confirmed BBb'ist myself I will tell of my two or three, mutually contradicting, main complaints against my BBb contrabasses:

They are too heavy for my problematic joints. Playing stand or Wenger chair makes the playing situation possible. But moving these devils in their cases amounts to torture.

They are only 4 valve instruments. They should have been 5 valvers or compers keeping their present sound and playing qualities.

My large PT-50 allows for a rather precise intonation of the occassional low 2+4 B nat and E nat, when they are related to notes of a precise intonation. But playing repeated perfect fourths and fifths involving low E nat, B nat, F#, and C# stresses my mind and gives me rashes, when I fail.

So even if I generally am not a slide-adjustment-puller, I pull my 4th slide for a perfect 2+4 tuning in the pieces, passages, and etudes, that are keyed around these notes. Works perfectly, also soundwise. But then one must be able to analyse tonal structures.

And I think, that this stresses another point, where Joe and I agree. Ideally tubists should be every bit as much musicians as pianists and violinists. Not that I have achieved that goal myself.


Follow Ups: