The Euphonium in the Orchestra

Why has the Euphonium never made a major impression on the orchestra?  Unlike the saxophone, there isn’t as clear of an answer.  With an instrument like the saxophone, there is the idea that a new and “unneeded” sound is being thrust into the already existing orchestra, but with the Euphonium, this is not the case.  The Euphonium is simply another member of the tuba family, and the tuba has been a firm member of the orchestra since the middle of the 1800s.

The Low Brass Unit

The standard low brass arrangement in the orchestra has been three trombones (2 Tenors and a Bass usually) and one tuba (composers rarely specify Bass or Contrabass Tuba).  Occasionally a fourth trombone is added or a second tuba.  Composers tend to think of this group as a cohesive unit.

It isn’t.

Verdi was the first to recognize this.  Verdi hated the tuba.  He knew that its rounded sound would not blend well with the harsh trombones.  Verdi instead chose to have his bottom brass part be played on a Cimbasso.  As to what instrument he actually preferred, that is a matter of heated academic debate, but it is generally accepted that the Cimbasso – at least in later Verdi works – was meant to be a valved Contrabass Trombone.

Wagner too realized that the tuba didn’t fit well with the trombones.  Instead of eliminating the tuba, he chose to use modified horns, the so-called Wagner Tubas, to make a cohesive family of tuba-like instruments. Both situations can be made into huge doctoral dissertations in and of themselves. However, for 60 years or so, the Euphonium lingered in the wind bands content to play counter melodies and tenor arias.

The Early Literature

Richard Strauss was the first to include the instrument in his orchestra.  The inclusion was purely accidental though.  In his 1897 tone poem, Don Quixote, he included a part for “Tenor Tuba” fully intending the part to be played on a Tenor Wagner Tuba.  Scoring for a single Wagner Tuba is highly unusual and almost never done.  Strauss realized how odd this was after the first performance, and suggested that the military Euphonium (German Baryton) be used in its place.  Every performance since has followed this route.  Strauss followed this up by included a part for Tenor Tuba in his Ein Heldenleben from 1898 one year later.  These are the only two works where Strauss scored for Tenor Tuba.  It is interesting to note that the scoring of Ein Heldenleben was completed before the premier of Don Quixote where the instrument change had to be made.  Perhaps this is why Strauss never wrote for the instrument again.

Mahler next tried to score for the Euphonium/Tenor Tuba in his Sixth Symphony from 1903-04.  This part, along with parts for Tenorhorn and Bass Tuba (in addition to the already present Contrabass Tuba) were part of a massive brass chorale from the finale of the 4th movement, but were ultimately left out of the final scoring.  It would have been fascinating to see a “tuba” section of Tenorhorn (Baritone Horn), Tenor Tuba (Euphonium), Bass Tuba, and Contrabass Tuba.  Mahler did however use a Tenorhorn in the opening of his Seventh Symphony.  However, this is not – I repeat, this is NOT – a part for the Euphonium.

British light music, that is music that was not intended to be as serious in nature as normal concert music, often had parts for the Euphonium in their scoring.  Gustav Holst knew this well playing in the Carl Rosa Opera Orchestra one of the leading light orchestras in the UK.  It is no surprise that he included the most famous Euphonium part in all the literature in his The Planets.  Holst’s instrument isn’t an afterthought or a mistake, but a genuine part of the ensemble

Why Didn’t the Euphonium Catch On?

There are a lot of theories as to why the Euphonium wasn’t incorporated into the orchestra.  Looking on the face of it, it should have easily been adopted into the orchestra around the same time as the tuba, but this never happened.  It was forever a “band instrument.”


Orchestras were tuned in the late 1800s and early 1900s to somewhere around a=435, which is slightly lower than today (a=440-442/3).  However, bands were regularly tuned to about a=457.5 nearly a quarter step higher than the orchestras.  British bands kept this pitch until well after World War 2 (into the 50s or 60s). This means that a band instrument could not be brought into the orchestra.   In order for an instrument, like a Euphonium, to be used in the orchestra, the maker would have to create a wholly new instrument slightly larger than the band instrument.  On a conical bore instrument this would have been difficult.  With no existing orchestral literature, there was no need to make instruments at the lower pitch.


The second reason probably has to do with the name of the instrument.  As pretty of a name as Euphonium is, it doesn’t tell what the instrument is.  It separates the instrument out from the rest and makes no connection to the rest of the brass.  Perhaps it isn’t strange that all of the early composers chose to write their parts for “Tenor Tuba” and not for “Euphonium.” Even today, when a Euphonium player tells a layperson what instrument they play they have to go through all sorts of explanations.  But, the term Tenor Tuba is considered non-standard.  I vouch that Tenor Tuba is the best term possible for the instrument.  It’s an accurate descriptor and it does not alienate the rest of the brass family.

The Great War

World War I brought to a screeching halt the production of large scale orchestral works.  The European economic collapse meant an end to the ever expanding orchestras of Wagner, Mahler, and Strauss.  Only in the economically stable UK did some progression go on (see The Planets).  The U.S. was now becoming the center of wind instrument manufacturing with companies like Conn, Beuscher, and Martin producing many fine instruments.  However, American orchestral music was on a completely different trajectory.  Americans were trying to find their own voice.  Only the distinctive Roy Harris found use of the Euphonium (he always referred to it as a “Baritone”).

In the economic ruins of Central Europe, composers were turning to new ideas such as 12-tone composition, serialism, and eventually to electronics after World War II.

Today’s World

Today, we live in a world of relative economic prosperity.  Our instruments are of the most advanced design ever seen. And we have players who can perform works older generations could never dream of.

Universities are now cranking out graduates with degrees in Euphonium performance at the rate of several dozen per year.  However, there are simply no jobs.  There may be less than a dozen civilian professional wind bands in the country.  Military bands are more abundant, but not always an option.  A Euphonium may be called for every few seasons in a major professional orchestra (and every few decades in a smaller regional orchestra).  Euphonium is rare, if not virtually non-existent in jazz or in any other myriad of genres.

Euphonium players are lonely and bored.  They need love.

Step 1: Drop the name Euphonium – call it a Tenor Tuba.

Step 2: Start scoring for the Tenor Tuba in orchestral works.  Maybe we should even think of scoring for 2 Tenor Tubas and a Bass Tuba like we score for 2 Tenor Trombones and a Bass Trombone.  Perhaps we go for a full section of four: 2 Tenor Tubas, Bass Tuba, and Contrabass Tuba.

Step 3: Convince today’s orchestras to program music being composed today.  Ever orchestral program should have at least one piece written in the last 50 years.  Sadly, my local major orchestra goes entire seasons without programming anything current or relevant.

Let’s welcome the Tenor Tuba with full arms into the orchestra.  They have nowhere else to go.

12 thoughts on “The Euphonium in the Orchestra

  1. Daniel Agramonte

    Love the article! As a Euphonium player who loves orchestral music, it is frustrating to no end that it has been ignored. I understand that you are likely involved with many projects of your own but would it be possible for you to add Tenor Tuba parts to existing symphonic works? I think it would be an interesting experiment, and I have little talent for composition. As for the role that the Tenor Tubas could play in the orchestra I was thinking that they could essentially act as 4th and 8th horn (in a score that originally calls for 6 horns for example). In addition, the instrument could add power to trombone and tuba lines and support the woodwinds in fast technical passages. As for solos, I would also believe that the Tenor Tuba would have great merit among the other brass instruments (as it already does in British brass bands. In fact the Euphonium is typically referred to as the Cello or the Viola of the brass band). It is stronger than trombones in technical passages and has a surprising range, as demonstrated by Demondrae Thurman in his performance of the Barfield Concerto (he eventually reaches a high F, four ledger lines above a tenor clef staff or F5 in scientific pitch notation at around 6:00).

    I would be very interested if you happened to write anything; in addition I know the conductor of my local full orchestra, so anything that you compose I can record. Obviously any such recording wouldn’t be professional but it would be to the best of my abilities. I don’t know if you can see my email so here it is: Feel free to contact me at any time if you are interested. Keep up the good work!

    1. Lots to respond to here. Are you asking about adding Tenor Tuba/Euphonium parts to existing symphonic works? If that is the question, my answer is an emphatic no. In all regards, I have to respect the absolute authority of the composer. If the composer didn’t want a tone color, we, as performers, are not to change their wishes.
      Now, on the other hand, if you are asking if I were to add a Tenor Tuba part to my own symphonic works, I would answer that many already have them. For me, I use it as a standard part of my brass line up.Off the top of my head, I can only think of one symphonic work where I did not include it.
      I would disagree about the instrument adding power to the trombones. I say this because the wide, warm sound would actually soften the pungent nature of the trombones. It would be much better as a contrasting instrument.
      I would wholeheartedly agree that the instrument can bolster the low horns by doubling the lowest horn part, or by adding another voice to the horn ensemble.

      1. Daniel Agramonte

        Thank you for your insight and comments, especially on verifying my hunches about the blend of Euphonium with low horns. In addition what is your opinion on the German Tenor Horn in B-flat? After research, I am starting to develop a more favorable view of the instrument, primarily for its strength in blending with horns. I am also interested in the information you posted here about the draft for Mahler’s 6th symphony. Does anyone sell these drafts or have them in a site such as IMSLP?

        And switching gears, what is your opinion on the future of Symphonic music. For me, I feel starved in a world that doesn’t cater to orchestral music. I want a revival of classical music. And how would a revival happen if new works are not performed? All the Greats of classical music experienced failure after failure in their music (which in itself was a likely motivating factor in the increased quality of their music) before they composed the sublime. How could one expect a composer nowadays to follow such a path when orchestras aren’t willing to perform new works at all? In addition policies such as these prevent the development of composers themselves. I feel as if some sort of change must occur in order for classical music to be more popular today, therefore encouraging new composers. Such innovation escapes me, but I hope it will be found someday. I apologize for my slight rant, my frustrations got the better of me. Good luck composing!

      2. The German Tenorhorn is basically a rotary Baritone Horn with some slight bore differences. As far as I can tell, the drafts of Mahler 6 are only available at a library in Germany (Dresden perhaps?).

        The future of symphonic music is too big to tackle in a single blog comment. Suffice to say, the key to the future is technological innovation. This is the key to the future of all areas. Art and technology drive each other to their limits.

  2. Steve

    I am in the process of writing an Orchestral Study Composition as an adjunct to an existing music theory and instruction book I wrote which is going into a new edition. This article is interesting since the standard orchestral ensemble doesn’t quite fit my needs for more mobility below C4. It’s nice that I have at least one thought similar to Verdi, that the trombones are an uneasy fit in the orchestra brass section while being more or less indispensable. My thought was to have two trombones and two Bb tenor tubas. What happens with a Unison melody with trombones and Tenor Tubas together assuming the trombones are marked down a bit on dynamics? Agree completely that Euphonium is a poor term to use. As long as Bb Tenor Tuba is listed there should be no confusion.

    I also think composers should be more willing to use various kinds of brass mutes rather than just sticking with the standard orchestral mute. What kind of mutes are available for the Tenor Tuba that work well in your view? Thanks for any info. Steve

    1. Some things to respond to:
      Unison with trombones and Euphoniums/Tenor Tubas – you don’t need to mark any dynamic difference between the two. The players will be fully capable of matching one another. Plus, putting different dynamics in parts to try and balance them inherently makes it seem that one part is more important than another when your goal is to make them equal.
      Two trombones and two Tenor Tubas – I don’t see why this won’t work. However, the traditional three voice trombone section exists to give a full chord with one timbre. Of course, if we’re dealing with Hans Zimmer “epic” scoring, then chords aren’t an issue.
      “Bb” Tenor Tuba – There’s no need to designate the pitch of the instrument. Just simply write the instrument at sounding pitch in bass or tenor clef. We don’t write Bb Tenor Trombone, no need to do so with the Tenor Tuba.
      Mutes – the only mute you’ll have access to is a straight mute, and even then, players won’t carry it with them to every gig.

      1. Steve

        Thank you so much for your quick reply. Haha i don’t think this will be Hans Zimmer worthy. If the Study Composition were a full scale orchestral work, the third trombone might be useful but as this will be more a (violin) soloist with accompanying orchestra kind of composition the need for that would be minimal. I don’t plan on using the trombones or Tenor Tubas for that matter in an entirely standard way anyhow. As noted my search that led here began with my concerns about the trombone as somewhat ill fitting in the brass section, especially on how I want to use it. So I would prefer to de-emphasize the trombones or use them in tandem rather than chordally.

        With respect to the Tenor Tuba mutes, you are confirming that in contrast to Trumpets and Trombones there is only one this kind of mute in existence for Tenor Tuba. Thanks again for your assistance, it is appreciated. Steve

  3. Steve

    Sorry to bother you again but I have three specific questions that I was unable to find consistent agreement on when researching the Tenor Tuba the past few weeks. (Unfortunately the Tuba is one of the few standard instruments where I don’t have easy access to an accomplished player.)

    1. What is the lowest note where the average orchestral player can reliably avoid any blattiness to the tone? It seems to me that Bb1 is always blatty to some extent and that E2 is reliably non-blatty. Where in-between does the blattiness begin even for orchestral players?

    2. What is the highest tone where the average orchestral player can produce a full dynamic range from pp to ff? In other words at what point in the upper range do the dynamics skew louder? The G3 seems reliably to have full dynamic range but I am unsure how far higher this goes?

    3. What is the orchestral weight of the Tenor Tuba compared to the French Horn? My subjective impression (perhaps incorrect) listening to (youtube) soloists in a concert hall is that the Tenor Tuba has considerably less volume and weight compared to the Bass Tuba.

    Thanks again for your previous assistance.

    1. 1) There’s no such thing as an average orchestral Euphoniumist. That said, because of the conical bore, the instrument doesn’t run the risk of getting blatty. The Bb1 is a pedal note so it’s on a different harmonic than the notes above it and that could account for the blattiness you hear, but a good player compensates for this.

      2) A good player has full control up to at least Bb4. I routinely write up to C5 without hesitation.

      3) I’m not sure I understand this question.

      1. Steve

        Thank you very much for your helpful reply. The third question was hard to phrase. I guess another way to put it is : A French Horn quartet is playing a piece in a good sized auditorium. Then the same piece is played by a Tenor Tuba Quartet. What would be the difference in terms of volume of the two quartets if any?

        If this still doesn’t make sense don’t worry about it. Your first two answers are the most important things I needed to know.

Comments are closed.