Inefficient tubas...

[PMeuph]

<SIDEBAR>

There certainly are bad ("inefficient") instruments, but there are also some players who don't understand the instruments they've been dealt.

</SIDEBAR>

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

As much truth as there is in this simple adage, the more I think about it the more I think it is flawed. In my experience the best craftsmen - in every field - care a lot about their tools, make sure they have the best and most appropriate tools available for the work they do, and take good care of them.

This will be nit-picky...

I agree with your statement that great craftsmen have great tools. However, the issue of the adage is that a poor craftsmen blames is tools, not that a great craftsmen can work on poor tools. Indeed, some people I know have purchased high end instruments and equipment and still blame the horn for their mistakes. (eg. "It's not my fault I couldn't play that high note didn't sound, my new mouthpiece is not great for high range"). I think a poor musician will still find issue with the best of horns and blame the horns instead of recognizing that they lack practice.

Ultimately, there was no need to assert the adage is flawed. In any given statement, one should never expect that the opposite holds true....

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism" target="_blank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmativ ... ve_premise" target="_blank

[jonesbrass]

This is an interesting discussion. I will just submit that I agree, great craftsmen do work with the tools that allow them to produce items of the highest quality. At the same time, those same craftspeople are fully capable of creating great things with "inferior" tools, as well. Ever witness a pro grab an "inferior" or "stuffy" or "crappy" tuba and make it sound like a million bucks? The magic is in the person, not necessarily the tools. Is a great player going to play on the best thing they can find/afford? Absolutely.

[GC]

My two cents:

Regarding tools: the difference between a great horn and a mediocre one is that the great horn lets you produce a great sound without unnecessary work and distractions, whereas a mediocre horn makes you spend time and attention on making things happen that should happen easily. This isn't blaming the tools; it's not wasting effort on things that shouldn't take so much work.

Regarding inefficiency: a friend recently loaned me a Willson 3400 Eb for a month or so. This horn did many things right that my old Monster Conn Eb requires me to struggle for. It didn't have the low B to A wonkiness; the high F popped out in tune and doesn't take alternate fingerings; response was clean and consistent from top to bottom. Yet after a month I gave the horn back and went back to the old Conn because I had to work twice as hard on the Willson to get comparable volume and was not as happy with the tone. I can fight the Conn into tune and can make it respond in the low register when need be, but the sheer ease of putting out good volume with that wonderful heirloom tone on the Conn made it work better for me (not to mention that the Willson was as heavy as lead).

It comes down to trading off efficiency in production of sound for ease of playing. I go for sound every time. I can live with the contradictions.

[glangfur]

I did start my comment with "As much truth as there is in this simple adage..."

The problem, in my mind, is that this adage is often used to assert that equipment doesn't really matter, that it's all in the skill of the performer.

Again, that's not really a false statement, it's just an incomplete statement. The skill of the performer is essential. Also, equipment DOES matter.

I'll even take it a step further. People often say "so-and-so would sound great on a garden hose/Bundy/whatever." Nonsense. So-and-so might be able to make better music on a garden hose than a beginner, but that doesn't mean that a garden hose is good enough to get the job done.

In fact, I assert that the more skilled the player, the more the quality of the instrument matters. A beginner violinist will sound equally bad on a Stradivarius and a cheap piece of plywood; Midori will sound worlds different. It will still be Midori, but what she can do will make the limitations of the plywood violin all that much more obvious.

Now...exactly what qualities the top players want in their instruments vary. Some are much better off with an instrument that has certain inefficiencies, and will deal with inconsistencies of response or intonation to get something special in the sound. Others do much, much better with a very even, very consistent instrument, creating the special character in the sound themselves.

I imagine the same thing is true of the very best carpenters. Some probably use the tools they learned on, never finding it necessary to "upgrade" to more modern, more consistent, more accurate equipment. Others probably find tremendous benefit in trying all the latest developments. In both cases, the tools matter to them.

[J.c. Sherman]

983

Blasphemy!

[Lingon]

...In fact, I assert that the more skilled the player, the more the quality of the instrument matters.

Excellent example Gabe. SA bit off topic I will relate something that I have experienced. Many years ago I heard Beethoven's violin concerto live with Isaac Stern. An absolutely marvelous performance. However somehow when he had played for a while a string broke and he had to borrow the concert masters instrument while the concert master fixed a new string for him. I can assure you there was a very noticeable difference between when he played his own violin and the borrowed one. Then he got his own back and the sound opened up again. Astonishing it was.

Otoh, at another concert I heard Stravinskij's violin concerto played by another orchestra's concert master. It was such a performance I have never heard before or after that, you know when the hair on your arms rise etc... His instrument was valued to about USD 200...

So as Gabe put it, not everything is about either the player or the instrument. But the right combination would make wonders.

[PMeuph]

The problem, in my mind, is that this adage is often used to assert that equipment doesn't really matter, that it's all in the skill of the performer.

And this is a logical fallacy.... It's philosophy 101 over again.... If you make a true statement, you can't expect it's opposite to be false. Life isn't always diametrically opposed.

FWIW, I have no issue with what you said about great players using the best tools for them (whatever they are). My beef is with this simple logical fallacy that some people use to get from:

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

To:

a great craftsmen can work on poor tools

It is incongruous and false. If somebody asserts that thee two statements are one and the same you can say "No, they aren't." It is illogical to get from a to b.

[Bob Kolada]

983

Blasphemy!

Mentioned because I believe that's what Jon has.

[cjk]

IMHO, any tuba with a lead pipe bigger than it needs to be is inefficient. Things like the 2165 and most Rudolf Meinl tubas are more work to play than other makes and models.

Instruments where the receiver isn't a receiver at all, but rather a sleeve around the end of the leadpipe, often fit into this "leadpipe too big" category. A harder articulation must be used on tubas without receivers than those with receivers.

I do like my RM with its "too big" leadpipe, but it is more work to play than some other instruments.

[jon112780]

983

Blasphemy!

Mentioned because I believe that's what Jon has.

You would be correct

However, I am quite satisfied my my 983. In contrast, I was comparing it to a couple other horns when I was considering starting this topic. While the replies were not completely what I had envisioned, it is interesting to watch the drama unfold