Posted by Rick Denney on June 16, 2003 at 10:19:11:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: F Tuba Timbre posted by D.Graves on June 14, 2003 at 10:18:48:
Reverberation smooths the sound and blurs the edges. To recording engineers, "presence" means that the instrument sounds close--present--without room ambience. What is room ambience but reverberation?
The tall-bell F tubas I've played seem to have a smoother sound, as if you brought the large room with you. It is quite likely that this is just what the player perceives, though, because the distance of that tall bell from the player's ears demands that what the player hears will have more room effects mixed in with it.
In concert halls, I've always appreciated the beauty of the tall-belled F tubas in the hands of masters. Perhaps I'd get the same effect from a Yamaha, but I confess I've never heard an 822 played in an orchestra. The 822's I've heard in chamber music sounded just as good as the player, in every case. I have heard the 621 used in an orchestra, and it sounded just like a tuba, with lots of clarity and crispness. The sound was not at all ugly. Consequently, I can't answer your question, because I haven't heard the instruments played in an orchestra side-by-side.
When I listen to the recording of Jacobs's master class (available on this site), I hear him play both his York and a borrowed F tuba. The difference in timbre is slight--almost too slight to notice in the recording (which doesn't have the best fidelity by any means). But he notes verbally the differences in sound even between mouthpieces, so I assume there were more differences in the hall than on the tape. Even so, it seemed obvious to me that Jacobs was doing the playing.
But I can't accept your hypothetical test in my own case, because my limitations as a player force me to consider playability. I do contend that what is more playable for me is also more playable for a pro, though it may be a matter of survival for me and comfortable ease for the pro. I have heard top pros fight the low registers of their B&S F tubas on several occasions, though in all cases those pros spent most of their playing time on larger instruments. That fighting never sounds good.
Thus, I would tell someone to find the F tuba that makes it as easy as possible to get the effect they want, and forget about categorical distinctions.
When I have brought up those categorical distinctions, it has been to define tendencies that exist, not to consign specific instruments to a limiting box or make recommendations to any given player (except those who face the same limitations I do). The instruments define the terms, not vice versa. It is organologically interesting to me. If there were no (at least player-perceived) sound differences or playability issues between classes of F tubas, there would be no desire to define them as being in separate classes and understand what contributes to those differences. Most piston F tubas seem to have been in one class, and most rotary F tubas seem to have been in another class. Thus, it is plausible but not necessarily correct to attribute the difference to the valves. That difference, though, seems to me dispelled by the crossover examples that I mentioned. Thus, there must be something else at work.
I do believe, however, that the something else at work is related to the playability of large contrabass instruments, some of which seem to play themselves and others of which require more demands on the performer. I don't think we know what that is, but I'm sure we will figure it out someday.
Rick "who uses the word 'magic' to describe what he cannot yet explain" Denney